खबरों की रसोई
आज की खबरें एक आम आदमी की जद्दोजहद से दूर भागने लगी हैं। इसका कारण यह है कि एक आम आदमी उन चीजों या बातों के बारे में सोचने से भी परहेज़ करने लगा है जो कि पहले उसे उद्वेलित करती थी। उसकी जागरूकता में ज़ंग लगनी शुरू हो गयी है.
इसलिए खबरों की रसोई में जनमानस को जागरूक बनाने का अब कोई प्रयास नहीं किया जाता बल्कि गंभीर विषयों को भी हल्का बनाकर पेश किया जाता है और हल्की चीजों को ‘हलकान’ बनाकर परोसने का खेल मुसल्सल जारी है। यही वजह है कि कई टीवी चैनल अरुणा राय या मेधा पाटकर से जुड़ी खबरें दिखाने में परहेज़ करते हैं मगर पेरिस हिल्टन या राखी सावंत की शारीरिक चौहद्दी- के बारे में लोगों के सामान्य ज्ञान की बढ़ोतरी करतीं हैं।
रातों रात स्टार बन जाने वाले लोगों के बारे में जिस तरह की चीजें अखबारों के पन्ने पर उत्तेजक या अश्लील ढंग से छापी जाती हैं उन्हें देखकर लगता है कि सिरदर्द बेचने वाली दवाई कंपनियों का भविष्य निश्चय ही उज्ज्वल है।
मीडिया एक जमाने में सच के साथ जाता था। आज वही मीडिया एक मायावीं संस्कृति की रचना का खेल खेलने लगा है। जिस तरह लोकतंत्र में राजनीतिक दलों को "पैसा पूँजीपतियों का और वोट गरीबों का" चाहिए होता है उसी तरह मीडिया को भी विज्ञापन औध्योगिक घराने से और पाठक या दर्शक मध्यम वर्ग से मिल जाता है। इसलिए मीडिया अब प्रजातंत्र को चौथा खम्बा बनाने के बजाय सत्ता का दलाल बनाना ज्यादा पसंद करता है क्योंकि इससे उसके आर्थिक लक्ष्य की पूर्ति तो होती है। फिर जनता जाये जहन्नुम में।
पिछले चंद सालों में समाज का एक तबका अब ये बात संजीदगी से सोचने लगा है कि खबरों के बाज़ार और रसोई का भविष्य क्या होगा। कभी देश की बड़ी से बड़ी खबर के साथ आम आदमी की जिंदगी के मसलों की फेहरिस्त भी शामिल होती थी जिसके चलते समाचार सूचना के साथ ज्ञानवर्धन का भी काम करता था। मगर आज कई समाचार ज्यादातर नौटंकी से लबरेज होते हैं जिनमें दर्शकों को चौंकाने, रिझाने या फिर लुभाने की क्षमता हो या फिर 'श्मसान सिद्धियां' कराने वाले बाबाओं की हरकतों जैसी सनसनीखेज घटनाएँ, जो किसी भी आम दर्शक के विवेक का कबाड़ा भी कर सकती हैं।
लब्बोलुबाब ये है कि मीडिया द्वारा मायावी संस्कृति की रचना का खेल जारी है और ‘ज्ञानोदय का भ्रम’ बनाये रखना ही समाचार चैनलों की यूसपी है। वर्तमान सन्दर्भ में मीडिया की महारथ " चमत्कार से चुतियापा" तक परोसने में है ओर इसमें उसे काफी सफलता भी मिली है। आज उसके पास करोड़ों ऐसे दर्शक हैं जिनके लिए कई चैनल अपने गले में रुद्राक्ष डालते हैं या बाँह पर ताबीज बाँधकर दर्शकों को बताते हैं कि पत्थर के गणेश जी बाल्टी भर दूध पीते हैं। इस किस्म के दर्शकों को रमोला की साँप से सादी मजेदार लगती है और यही दर्शक कारोबारी मीडिया के लिए बेहूदा से बेहूदा खबरों को भकोसने के लिए आदर्श 'कूड़ेदान ' का काम करता है।
आज का मीडिया कभी नहीं चाहेगा कि उसे पढ़ें लिखे दर्शक मिलें जो सूचना के अधिकार को समझते हों और सूचना की राजनीति पर सीधा सवाल उठाने को तैयार हो जाये। इससे तो उनक़ी वास्तविक छबि और मंशा की कलई खुल जायेगी। इसलिए हर दिन एक हौवा खड़ा किया जाता है कि कौन सी फिल्मी हस्तियाँ किस के साथ प्रेम कर रही हैं, कौन सा खिलाड़ी किस फुलझड़ी के साथ चल रहा है वगैरह वगैरह। फिर उसपे आधे घंटे का 'विशेष' या 'स्पेशल' होगा जिसमें विशेषज्ञों की एक ऐसी फौज खड़ी कर दी- जायेगी जिनके पास प्रेम करने का अपना अनुभव कभी नही होगा.
शायद यही वजह है कि मीडिया अपने द्वारा बनाये या बुने हुऐ जाल में कहीं ना कहीं ख़ुद फंसता सा दिखाई दे रहा है। खबरों की दुनिया महज एक मंडी बनकर रह गयी है जहाँ हर तरह की खबरें सब्जी की तरह बिकती हैं। खबरें चैनलों की रसोई में तलती, सिंकती तथा उबलती हैं तथा एडिटर जैसे रसोइऐ की इच्छानुसार दर्शकों के टेस्ट तथा क्लास को ध्यान में रखकर परोसी जाती हैं.
ये बात कितनी भी हंसी वाली क्यों ना लगे मगर सच्चाई ये है कि ख़बर मीडिया बाज़ार में 'आलू' की तरह बन गया है जिसकी हर न्यूज़ चैनल अपनी इच्छानुसार काटकर, तलकर , छीलकर , उबालकर या फिर पीसकर उसकी ऐसी तैसी कर अपने दर्शकों को परोसता है और जनता उसको चटखारे लेकर भकोसती है। याद रहे कि आलू वही होता है, मगर जब तक उसकी रसोई या सब्जी बनती है तब तक उसका अपना अस्तित्व शायद गायब हो चुका होता है।
आजकल हर दिन मंत्रियों और नेताओं की प्रेस कॉन्फेंस ऐर प्रेस नोट उस आलू की तरह होते हैं जो प्रतिदन के हिसाब से हर जैनल या अखबार को उपलब्ध कराए जाते हैं। अब यह टैनल वह उस अखबार विशेश पर निर्भर करता है कि उस खहर को कैसे पकाया, सैंका, तला जाए या उबालकर जनता को खिलाया जाए। मिसाल के तौर पर रक्षा मंत्रि एके एंटनी ने सियाचिन के माममले पर एक वकत्व्य जारी कर कहा कि कि सियाचिन से फौज नहीं हटाई जाएगी। यही खबर अलग-अलग चैनलों में इस तरह चली जैसे एक ही आलू के नौ अलग-अलग व्यंजनपर एक बड़ा सा पैकेज बन गए हों।
एनडीटीवी के अंग्रेजी चैनल ने उस खबर पर एक बड़ा सा पैकेज बना दिया जैसे उसे सियाचिन पर रक्षा मंत्री की बाइट का इंतजार है। बाकी चाशनी तो पहले से ही तैयार थी
एनडीटीवी इंडिया ने इस खबर के साथ थोड़ा अलग सलूक किया। इसके संपादक महोदय बोले ‘अरे मटियाओ ये बुढवा कुछ अल्लर-बल्लर बोलता ही रहता है’, मगर प्रोड्यूसर ने रक्षामंत्री के इस वक्तव्य को महज एक वीओवीटी अनकट बनाकर चलाया और पूरे प्रकरण से निजात पा ली
आज तक जैसे चैनल के लिए यह महज एक साधारण सी बात बन कर रह गई क्योंकि उनकी नजरों में रक्षामंत्री का यह बयान नया नहीं था, और दरअसल आजतक के दर्शकों के मन में सियाचिन जैसी चीज से खास दिलचस्पी भी नहीं रहती हैं। इसलिए रक्षामंत्री का बयान न्यूजरूम में ही दफन हो गया।
ज़ी न्यूज के लिए सियाचिन जैसा मसला बिल्कुल बेकार है। भले ही डिफेंस बीट कवर करने वाला रिपोर्टर कितना ही सर फोड़ ले कि रक्षामंत्री का बयान कितना महत्वपूर्ण है लेकिन समाचार संपादक उसकी बात नहीं सुनेगा। काफी बक-बक के बाद उसकी यही दलील होगी कि लालाजी से बात हो गई है औऱ इस खबर में कोई दम नहीं और तुम भी अपना दिमाग खराब मत करो।
दूसरी तरफ स्टार न्यूज को एंथनी के बयान में कुछ न कुछ सनसनी अवश्य दिखाई देगी। न्यूज रूम में लोग रिपोर्टर को फौरन लाइव की सूली पर चढ़ाकर उसकी मूर्खता का नज़ारा और उसके मुंह से निकले ब्रह्मवाक्य पर एसएमएस का खेल शुरू कर देंगे।
सहारा समय में सियाचिन का महत्व तकरीबन न के बराबर होगा, और अमूमन समाचार संपादक की यही दलील होती है कि “यार जो जमीन की खबर है उसे तुम संभाल नहीं पाते हो अब चौदह हजार फुट ऊंची खबर पर कहां से खेलोगे।”
रही बात और चैनलों की तो एक खास खबरिया चैनल के प्रबंध संपादक हमेशा हर कोई खबरों के पीछे की ख़बर बताने के लिए न्यूज़ रूम में ही क़ैमरे के सामने प्रवचन देने लगते हैं। विषय कोई भी हो, उनको ही सबसे पहले खड़ा कर दिया जाता है कि जितनी देर में मोहतरम अपने साथियों को अपना आशीर्वाद देते रहेंगे उससे कहीं अच्छा है कि वे कैमरे के सामने आकर अपने दर्शकों का ही भेजा खाए या खून पीए।
एक और चैनल की महारथ 'विशेष ' करने में माहिर है क्योंकि उसके संपादक अदना से मसले पर भी आधे घंटे से कम बोलना अपनी शान के खिलाफ समझते हैं। सुबह हुई और ब्लूलाइन ने एक और को कुचला तो 'विशेष ' दोपहर में शास्त्री भवन में चंद बंदरों ने उत्पात मचाया तो 'विशेष ' और शाम को अगर मल्लिका शेरावत की चुनरी सरक गयी तब तो और भी विशेष। मीडिया बाज़ार की चुनिंदा रतौंधी वाली बीमारी ऐसे ही पनपती और परवान चढ़ती है।
रही बात रीजनल चैनल की तो वहां के न्यूजरूम में ऐसी ख़बरों का वैसे भी कोई महत्व नहीं होता क्योंकि उनके दर्शकों को उनके इलाके की खबर से मतलब है, जिसमें वो सुबह से ही नहाना शुरू कर देते और शाम तक पूरी तरह डूब जाते हैं।
दुर्भाग्य यह है कि हर खबरिया चैनलों के साथ ही समाचारपत्रों के चंडूखाने में इस किस्म की कसरत हर रोज और कई बार हुआ करती है और खबर की अहमियत औऱ उपयोगिता को उस दिन की मंडी में आलू और प्याज की तरह ही तौला और इस्तेमाल किया जाता है।
खबरों की अहमियत इस बात से होती है कि किस अमुक विषय पर खेलने और तानने की गुंजाइश हो। इसमें घटना विशेष से ज्यादा ध्यान दूरी पर दिया जाता है क्योंकि खबरों के खेल में लाइव एलिमेंट तथा उससे जुड़ी तड़क-भड़क औऱ साज सज्जा का बड़ा ही महत्व होता है।
पत्रकार कितना भी प्रखर और तेजस्वी क्यों न हो और उसका सूचना तंत्र कितना भी विश्वसनीय क्यों न हो। मगर जब बड़ी खबरों की बात आती तो उसकी स्थिति कोल्हू के बैल की तरह हो जाती है, क्योंकि उसका संपादक यह कबूल करने को तैयार ही नहीं होता है कि उसका रिपोर्टर उससे कहीं ज्यादा विश्वसनीय है और शायद यही वजह है कि कई बार बड़ी खबरें संपादक के मिथ्या दम औऱ अंहकार की बलि चढ़ जाती। ऐसे ही पत्रकार ने जब अपने संपादक को ये खबर दी कि वामपंथी नेता सोनिया गांधी की बजाए मनमोहन सिंह को प्रधानमंत्री बनाने की तैयारी कर रहे हैं तो संपादक ने पत्रकार को पूरी तरह से मूर्ख करार देने में कोई कसर बाकी नहीं छोड़ी। लेकिन 5 दिन बाद जब मनमोहन सिंह राष्ट्रपति भवन में स्वयं को प्रधानमंत्री घोषित किए जाने के बाद मीडिया से बात कर रहे थे तो उस समय वही संपादक पिटा हुआ मुंह लेकर अपने उसी पत्रकार से पूरी खबर का विस्तृत ब्यौरा पेश करने का आदेश दे रहे थे। लेकिन पत्रकार ने उन्हें बस इतना कह कर चुप करा दिया की वो खबर अब मर चुकी है।
दुर्भाग्य ये है कि आजकल के संपादक अपनी बुद्दि का पैमाना अपने पके हुए बाल से मापते हैं मगर अपने अनुभव और विवेक से नहीं। अकसर ऐसा देखा गया है कि सच बोलने या लिखने वाले पत्रकार को तमगा या शाबासी की बजाए मुफलिशी या बदनसीबी ही हाथ लगती है। यही वजह है की बड़ी खबरें फोड़ने वाले पत्रकारों को ही सूली पर चढ़ा दिया जाता है क्योंकि चैनलों के मालिक और संपादक लक्ष्मी पुत्रों के पांव पर ही गिरते हैं। उन्हें कभी माता सरस्वती की वीणा उठाते नहीं देखा जाता।
खबरिया चैनलों की खबरों की रसोई में इस बात का कोई ध्यान नहीं रखता की खबरों की अहमियत और उसका जनमानस पर क्या असर पड़ेगा बल्कि इस बात की हरदम कोशिश की जाती हैं कि किस दिन, किस मौसम में तथा किस रंग और अदा में खास खबर परोसी जाए जो दर्शकों को बांध कर रखने में कामयाब हो।
न्यूज रूम के चंडू खाने में खींचने और तानने लायक बिंदुओं पर जमकर बहस होती है फिर एक्शन प्लान तैयार होता है और फौरन उसका कार्यान्वयन होता है।
जिस रोज पकाने वाली खबरों का अभाव होता है। उस दिन एक नई रेसिपी बनती है। और पिद्दी के टांग को शुतुर्मुग का अंडा बना कर पेश किया जाता है। वैसे भी भारत जैसे देश में सालाना पर्व की तरह हैजा, डेंगू, बाढ़, सूखा तथा रेल दुर्घटना जैसे कई अन्य विषयों पर मसाले हर दम तैयार रहते हैं जिन पर न्यूज रूम के महारथी खुलकर खेलते हैं। हर रोज खबरों की रसोई में नए व्यंजन पकते हैं खबरो की तोड़-मरोड़ और सच्चाई के साथ बलात्कार के नए तरीके इज़ाद होते हैं और खबरों के कारोबार का सिलसिला बदस्तूर चलता रहता है।
आखिर में यही लगता है
ये नहीं थी बात की मेरा कद घट गया
थी छोटी सी चादर और मैं सिमट गया।
खबरिया चैनलों की रसोई का यही सच है।
मंगलवार, 23 फ़रवरी 2010
सोमवार, 22 फ़रवरी 2010
Reviving India's Foreign policy.... Part IV
07 June 2009
Reviving India’s Foreign policy - Part IV
All nations, big or small, pursue some of the foreign policy goals and objectives to secure their territorial sovereignty, internal security, political stability and economic prosperity.Foreign policy then refers to the relations of a nation in an attempt to achieve a set of given objectives The nation ordinarily seeks to gain those objectives through diplomacy.
A nation usually has several broad aims, which remain the same even though political parties, or its form of government may change. It is an accepted dictum of foreign policy and diplomacy that “In international relations there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests”. Broad national objectives are generally supported by specific actions. Shaping foreign policy involves makinga series of choices among a variety of alternative possible courses. Foreign policy is a continuous process because each new step depends on a previous action and the changes it causes in the behaviour of other nations, as a consequence.
Indian foreign policy under the UPA government (or any nation’s foreign policy for that matter) could thus be seen in the light of these factors. However, a careful analysis of the balance-sheet of India’s foreign policy during this period does not present a rosy picture. On the contrary, India’s upward trajectory towards reaching a global power status following its nuclear weaponization tests of 1998 appears to have been lost somewhere in the middle during 2004-09 and it has stumbled along the way in retaining its strategic autonomy in foreign policy formations.
Many foreign policy experts have described the foreign policy of India under Dr Manmohan Singh during 2004-2009 as ‘wasted years’ because of his near-obsession with pushing through the Indo-US nuke deal at any cost. This deal may have some merits of course, but the overall impression in thediplomatic circles across the world was that Indian foreign policy became uni-directional and one-dimensional, as opposed to a multi-dimensional focus required to secure its wide national security interests.
It was a far cry from the policy initiatives during earlier regimes during which a different kind of momentum had been built. Even as we have crossed the first half of 2009, India does not seem to figure in the global strategic and power calculus as a nation with strategic autonomy in foreign policy formulations and decision making and today, India is being perceived as more of a US camp follower on the lines of UK and Japan.
There seems to be a strange parallel between Pandit Nehru obsession with China and Dr Manmohan Singh’s fixation with the USA. Nehru was mystified by China and became oblivious to the strategic and national security dangers that lurked as a result of romanticizing China. In the same way, Dr Singh romanticized USA in terms of the Indo-US nuke deal at the cost of other pressing strategic dangers to India.
Secondly, Indian foreign policy became personalized in Pandit Nehru and PMO had a major say in the foreign policy making. The PMO under Dr Manmohan Singh tried to emulate the same. That time it was Nehru and Krishna Menon and 2009 edition of 1960s was Manmohan Singh and Shiv Shankar Menon. The wisdom of putting all the eggs in one basket was challenged in 1962, yet again the lesson seems to be lost 37 years down the line. Are we repeating history or condemning it?
The US-centric orientation of India’s foreign policy during this period could be seen in the light of the fact that it was forced into engaging Pakistan in peace dialogues under American pressure. India also signed the Havana Agreement with Pakistan on counter-terrorism cooperation, even as the public opinion was against it.
In addition, India was on the verge of gifting away the strategic Siachen sector to Pakistan. Had the Indian Army not applied emergency brakes, India would have lost hold of its vital strategic territory like Nehru lost Aksai Chin to China.
What is all the more obvious is that Obama administration too is following the same US-Pak centric policy and India has been forced to reconcile more than needed, even at the cost of adverse domestic public opinion. On the other hand, the Indo-Us nuke deal which remained the centre-piece of India’s foreign policy, has yet to achieve its full finalization.
In the process, India seems to have missed the bus in terms of securing a seat in the global high table and emerging as a global power of consequence. India needs to break out of her self-imposed straitjacket of limited perspectives and limited options. India has not only lost the perspective and an independent foreign policy approach on Europe and other parts of the world. It has also lost heavily in terms of collateral damage to its regional strategic interests and particularly with regard to Pakistan, its policy was no longer determined by its own” thinking” but by continuous” American pressure to fall in line”.
It is thus very important that India’s foreign policy undergoes a total re-calibration and careful calculation in the face of the emerging challenges from many quarters. At present, our foreign policy is merely a ‘reactive’ one and not a proactive one – formulated by foreign policy experts and think-tanks.
Suggestions
India has to search for a more competent team of Ministers for running the MEA with the active support of all its wings and think- tanks and academic institutions on international issues.
It has to take a fresh look at the existing pool of IFS posted around in its consulates and embassies across the world and a make a realistic assessment on the actual requirement on all major regions of the world in terms of translating Indian foreign policy into action, as well as providing feedback on a daily basis.
MEA’s scope and purview of action needs to be given a fresh look and more experts and specialized manpower needs to be deployed at many places in the light of changing paradigms of diplomacy and mode of diplomatic engagements.
Apart from the serving cops of IFS, whose number is less than 1000 for catering to such a vast canvas, there is need for developing a heavy-duty battery of experts and encourage more “specialized institutions” across the country to engage in study programmes on various regions of the world and come out with fresh findings.
JNU alone cannot be adequate for such international study programmes. There is need for more such centres and institutes specializing in external affairs studies, with more resources and manpower and new study programmes.
The new foreign secretary Ms Nirupama Rao should also undertake a comprehensive review of the MEA, with the aim of detecting the “loopholes” and plugging them effectively in the existing set up and strengthening the management of diplomatic system .
There should be internal scanning and posting of officers in sensitive locations and regions should be done purely on merit, than other considerations.
There should be more effective and meaningful interaction of think tanks and specialized institutions with MEA core group to give more concrete informationand updates on all areas of concern to draft a more calibrated foreign policy approach on a continuous basis rather than the knee-jerk reactions.
Last but not the least, the PMO should at best play a ‘supervisory’ role in foreign policy matters and not a ‘suffocatingly proactive’ role, till such time it has a Prime Minister who has an international profile and the charisma to go with it. Till such time, foreign policy formulation should be left to foreign policy experts and not allowed to be hijacked by policemen and finance whizkids.
One hopes that the UPA government in its second term, takes a serious look at these parameters and sets the MEA in order for a bigger set of diplomatic challenges ahead – that is, if it doesn’t want its foreign policy to be an ‘alien’ one.
Reviving India’s Foreign policy - Part IV
All nations, big or small, pursue some of the foreign policy goals and objectives to secure their territorial sovereignty, internal security, political stability and economic prosperity.Foreign policy then refers to the relations of a nation in an attempt to achieve a set of given objectives The nation ordinarily seeks to gain those objectives through diplomacy.
A nation usually has several broad aims, which remain the same even though political parties, or its form of government may change. It is an accepted dictum of foreign policy and diplomacy that “In international relations there are no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests”. Broad national objectives are generally supported by specific actions. Shaping foreign policy involves makinga series of choices among a variety of alternative possible courses. Foreign policy is a continuous process because each new step depends on a previous action and the changes it causes in the behaviour of other nations, as a consequence.
Indian foreign policy under the UPA government (or any nation’s foreign policy for that matter) could thus be seen in the light of these factors. However, a careful analysis of the balance-sheet of India’s foreign policy during this period does not present a rosy picture. On the contrary, India’s upward trajectory towards reaching a global power status following its nuclear weaponization tests of 1998 appears to have been lost somewhere in the middle during 2004-09 and it has stumbled along the way in retaining its strategic autonomy in foreign policy formations.
Many foreign policy experts have described the foreign policy of India under Dr Manmohan Singh during 2004-2009 as ‘wasted years’ because of his near-obsession with pushing through the Indo-US nuke deal at any cost. This deal may have some merits of course, but the overall impression in thediplomatic circles across the world was that Indian foreign policy became uni-directional and one-dimensional, as opposed to a multi-dimensional focus required to secure its wide national security interests.
It was a far cry from the policy initiatives during earlier regimes during which a different kind of momentum had been built. Even as we have crossed the first half of 2009, India does not seem to figure in the global strategic and power calculus as a nation with strategic autonomy in foreign policy formulations and decision making and today, India is being perceived as more of a US camp follower on the lines of UK and Japan.
There seems to be a strange parallel between Pandit Nehru obsession with China and Dr Manmohan Singh’s fixation with the USA. Nehru was mystified by China and became oblivious to the strategic and national security dangers that lurked as a result of romanticizing China. In the same way, Dr Singh romanticized USA in terms of the Indo-US nuke deal at the cost of other pressing strategic dangers to India.
Secondly, Indian foreign policy became personalized in Pandit Nehru and PMO had a major say in the foreign policy making. The PMO under Dr Manmohan Singh tried to emulate the same. That time it was Nehru and Krishna Menon and 2009 edition of 1960s was Manmohan Singh and Shiv Shankar Menon. The wisdom of putting all the eggs in one basket was challenged in 1962, yet again the lesson seems to be lost 37 years down the line. Are we repeating history or condemning it?
The US-centric orientation of India’s foreign policy during this period could be seen in the light of the fact that it was forced into engaging Pakistan in peace dialogues under American pressure. India also signed the Havana Agreement with Pakistan on counter-terrorism cooperation, even as the public opinion was against it.
In addition, India was on the verge of gifting away the strategic Siachen sector to Pakistan. Had the Indian Army not applied emergency brakes, India would have lost hold of its vital strategic territory like Nehru lost Aksai Chin to China.
What is all the more obvious is that Obama administration too is following the same US-Pak centric policy and India has been forced to reconcile more than needed, even at the cost of adverse domestic public opinion. On the other hand, the Indo-Us nuke deal which remained the centre-piece of India’s foreign policy, has yet to achieve its full finalization.
In the process, India seems to have missed the bus in terms of securing a seat in the global high table and emerging as a global power of consequence. India needs to break out of her self-imposed straitjacket of limited perspectives and limited options. India has not only lost the perspective and an independent foreign policy approach on Europe and other parts of the world. It has also lost heavily in terms of collateral damage to its regional strategic interests and particularly with regard to Pakistan, its policy was no longer determined by its own” thinking” but by continuous” American pressure to fall in line”.
It is thus very important that India’s foreign policy undergoes a total re-calibration and careful calculation in the face of the emerging challenges from many quarters. At present, our foreign policy is merely a ‘reactive’ one and not a proactive one – formulated by foreign policy experts and think-tanks.
Suggestions
India has to search for a more competent team of Ministers for running the MEA with the active support of all its wings and think- tanks and academic institutions on international issues.
It has to take a fresh look at the existing pool of IFS posted around in its consulates and embassies across the world and a make a realistic assessment on the actual requirement on all major regions of the world in terms of translating Indian foreign policy into action, as well as providing feedback on a daily basis.
MEA’s scope and purview of action needs to be given a fresh look and more experts and specialized manpower needs to be deployed at many places in the light of changing paradigms of diplomacy and mode of diplomatic engagements.
Apart from the serving cops of IFS, whose number is less than 1000 for catering to such a vast canvas, there is need for developing a heavy-duty battery of experts and encourage more “specialized institutions” across the country to engage in study programmes on various regions of the world and come out with fresh findings.
JNU alone cannot be adequate for such international study programmes. There is need for more such centres and institutes specializing in external affairs studies, with more resources and manpower and new study programmes.
The new foreign secretary Ms Nirupama Rao should also undertake a comprehensive review of the MEA, with the aim of detecting the “loopholes” and plugging them effectively in the existing set up and strengthening the management of diplomatic system .
There should be internal scanning and posting of officers in sensitive locations and regions should be done purely on merit, than other considerations.
There should be more effective and meaningful interaction of think tanks and specialized institutions with MEA core group to give more concrete informationand updates on all areas of concern to draft a more calibrated foreign policy approach on a continuous basis rather than the knee-jerk reactions.
Last but not the least, the PMO should at best play a ‘supervisory’ role in foreign policy matters and not a ‘suffocatingly proactive’ role, till such time it has a Prime Minister who has an international profile and the charisma to go with it. Till such time, foreign policy formulation should be left to foreign policy experts and not allowed to be hijacked by policemen and finance whizkids.
One hopes that the UPA government in its second term, takes a serious look at these parameters and sets the MEA in order for a bigger set of diplomatic challenges ahead – that is, if it doesn’t want its foreign policy to be an ‘alien’ one.
Reviving India's Foreign Policy ... Part III
01 August 2009
Two incidents in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in this session of Parliament and the response and conduct of MEA should have been enough for the Government of India to take a serious look at the way India’s External Affairs Minister and the ministry was functioning.
The first blunder committed by MEA Mr SM Krishna was on 6th July in Rajya Sabha when he read out a statement on the first anniversary of the attack on Indian Embassy in Kabul which a number of diplomatic and security personnel had lost their lives .But he was not able to answer any question on what had the government done for the dependents of those victims and it was the former Minister of state for External Affairs, Anand Sharma who saved Mr Krishna from being pilloried on the floor of the House.
The second was Mr Krishna’s reply in Lok Sabha on 29th July on the mention of Balochistan in Indo-Pak joint statement issues at Sharm el Sheikh between Prime ministers of India and Pakistan. The entire opposition walked out of the House in protest against” unsatisfactory” reply from Mr Krishna and former External Affairs minister Mr Yashwant Sinha went to the extent of saying that “The country’s foreign policy would not be safe in Krishna’s hands. He would do to MEA in four months what Shivraj Patil took four years to do to Ministry of Home Affairs”.
While the UPA government would have got away with such “bloopers and blunders” because of its sheer strength in the House, yet the fact remains that the conduct of India’s foreign policy needs a serious re-think and a fresh approach in the light of the emerging set of challenges both at regional and global level.
Mr Krishna and Mr Tharoor may have looked like novices in the face of such thorny issues, but the fact is that it is the Prime Minister’s Office which has to take the major share of blame for such a faux pas both at Sharm-el Sheikh, as well as in Parliament for a variety of reasons.
The PMO has always dominated foreign policy issues from the very beginning and it went on exercising it’s “extra powers” even when it was not required.
It was Pandit Nehru who set the pattern for the formation of India’s foreign policy by thrusting a strong personal role for the Prime Minister and in the process, making the MEA a weak institutional structure. Nehru kept the MEA portfolio with himself because at that time he was the best person to handle this portfolio, because of his titanic and iconic international stature and experience. He took all the foreign policy decisions himself after consulting with his advisors and then entrusted the conduct of international affairs tothe senior members of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS).
His successor continued to exercise considerable control over India’s international dealings even through they appointed a separate minister for External Affairs. Mrs Indira Gandhi further strengthened the role of PMO in controlling MEA. She also established RAW for gathering intelligence and providing various kinds of inputs to the PMO and conducted overt operations abroad.
The PMO’s influence over MEA remained very strong during the regime of Mrs Gandhi and Shri Rajiv Gandhi for various reasons and one of the common factors was their giant international stature and influence. MEA was, on the other hand, stronger during the tenure of Morarji Desai, VP Singh, Chandrashekhar and PV Narasimha Rao,
The PMO under Dr Manmohan Singh has been successful in making itself as the supreme body, thanks to the dexterous manipulations by his NSA MK Narayanan and his principal Secretary TKA Nair and the coterie around them, even as Dr Singh could be a poor shadow of the Gandhis in terms of their international recognition and personal stature. Ministry of External Affairs has been functioning as “extended PMO” and no wonder then that India’s diplomatic and foreign policy conduct has remain amateurish because they have been handled by anyone, but career diplomats.
As long as Mr Pranab Mukerjee remained in command in MEA, there was some uniformity and consistency and India’s success in pinning down Pakistan post 26/11 at international fora was mainly because of his personal effort than that of his Ministry. But that advantage appears to have been frittered away now and the barrage of attack that both PM and MEA faced in the aftermath of the Sharm el Sheikh joint statement once again proved that India needed more seasoned diplomats who were well versed with nuances and conduct of cool and calculated diplomatic tasks and engagements than those politicians who were outclassed and outmaneuvered by UK and US educated Pakistani leaders and diplomats, when it came to the drafting and declarations couched in ambiguity and ambivalence.
No wonder then, as a former Foreign Secretary, said ‘whatever India gains on the ground, invariably loses on the diplomatic bargaining table. “
Need for a fresh perspective
MEA has been entrusted with task of foreign affairs, foreign policy making, actual implementation of the policy and the daily conduct of international relations. The Ministry’s duties include providing timely information and analysis to the PM as well MEA, recommending specific measures when necessary, planning policy for the future and maintaining communication with foreign missions in New Delhi.
In 1994, MEA administered 149 diplomatic missions abroad. The figure has gone up to 160 now and these missions have been staffed largely by members of IFS. That time the total cadre strength of IFS was 3490 out of which 1890 had been posted abroad and more than 1600 served in MEA head quarters in New Delhi. That strength has grown by 16 per cent by now. In 2007, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon had announced that actual strength of the IFS engaged in task of performing diplomacy management was just 660 and he wanted to double the number because of its increasing role and presence as an emerging global power at various levels. It remains to be seen how much implementation of his plan was implemented in actual terms.
Apart from the management of day to day affairs of over 160 embassies and consulates abroad, MEA has more than 13 territorial divisions, each covering a large area of the world. It also has functional Divisions dealing with external publicity, protocol, consular affairs, Indians abroad, the UN and other international organizations and international conferences. Two other divisions among the total of 18 have special role to play. One is the policy planning and research division whose task is to conduct research and prepare briefs and background papers for top policy makers and Ministry officials. The second is the Economic Wing, entrusted with the task of handling foreign economic relations.
Despite all these support systems, Mr Krishna was found faltering in his role as EAM, whether it was racial attacks on Indian students in Australia, or Sri Lanka and even on Pakistan. His utterances have proved that he is out of depth in grasping the basics of foreign policy, let alone its nuances. He still needs the help of handouts to speak on specific issues and at press conferences, he has developed the habit of side-stepping even the most pertinent questions.
He refused to speak even in Lok Sabha on Pakistan saying “most of the issues have been answered by the PM and Mr Pranab Mukerjee”. That he was very uncomfortable in his role as MEA was proved in the joint Press Conference with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In hindsight, the wisdom of appointing Shri S.M Krishna, who hitherto had not stepped outside the state of Karnataka, as EAM, is seriously under a cloud. It might as well be asked why Dr. Karan Singh could not have been considered. Today, no other person seems to possess better credentials to be the EAM than Dr. Singh.
On the other hand, National Security Advisor MK Narayanan appears to be the Super External Affairs Minister, as he has been actively involved inMEA even on matters of routine posting, a terrain that apparently interests him more than policy matters that he is expected to handle.
But this state of affairs points towards a bigger malaise and the buck stops at the door of the Prime Minister himself. It is this that provoked historian Ramchandra Guha to say that the men in their ‘70s are handling India’s foreign policy in the complex scenario of 2009 when we live in a global world of shifting alliances, where the sole superpower status of US is being challenged by a rising China, a combative Russia and a less than deferential European nations.
He underscores the need for a more seasoned handling of foreign policy by experienced people fromthe diplomatic corps who have a better understanding of diplomacy and foreign policy. Mr Krishna is 77 years old and his professional acquaintance in international affairs has been scanty beyond Karnataka. Dr Manmohan Singh is 76 years and his area of expertise has by and large, remained economics and finance. National Security Advisor Mr MK Narayanan is 75 years comes from the police Service and many experts have gone to the extent of saying that “his police background promotes a tunnel vision that impedes a wider understanding of regional and global issues and forces”, says Guha.
As compared to them, the overall age of their US and European counterparts is much younger (in 50s and 60s) be it Hillary Clinton (61) British Foreign Secretary David Milliband (44), his German counterpart Frank Walter Steinmeier (53) and Pakistani Foreign Affairs Minister Makhdoom Qureshi is of the same age.(53). To this one might add the ‘kid on the block’ – 48 year old President of the United States of America.
If one were to trace the Indian foreign policy, particularly from ‘90s onwards, one would be at wit’s end if asked to count foreign policy successes. India is surrounded by a hostile neighbourhood and we cannot count even one nation as our friend – a fact at which our foreign policy mandarins should hang their heads in shame. The only instance of success that would possibly come to mind is the Indo-US nuclear deal. This too, however comes with a rider. The government could not even sell the deal properly within the country. Our political class too needs to understand that politicisation of foreign policy issues comes at the peril of the international prestige of the nation.
“To work in the realm of foreign affairs or national security requires one to be awake at all hours and alert to all possibilities, to be comfortable with modern technology and to be interested even in the obscure parts of the world and finally, to be willing to travel long distances at the drop of a hat” says Mr Guha.
This, according to some experts, was one of the reasons why Mr Pranab Mukherjee opted out of MEA because he could not take on the rigours of frequent travel abroad.
Under these circumstances, it is pertinent that the conduct of diplomacy and foreign policy is entrusted into competent hands where India’s national and external security, economic and business interests are secured and acted upon as per its capacity for ambitious and effective international actions.
It remains open to debate whether the Indian ship of State could sail in the rocky ocean of global politics by even one old man in his seventies and in India we still have a trio? The naked truth remains that neither of the three Stalwarts have theproven credentials as a good diplomat, a foreign policy expert, or a strategic thinker.
If the likely contours of Indian foreign policy were to be summed up in one sentence it would be that it should – “Try to resemble tea leaves and show its colour when in hot water.” The immediate need of the hour therefore, is to find an EAM who can steer the ship of foreign policy out of the choppy waters it presently is in.
Two incidents in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha in this session of Parliament and the response and conduct of MEA should have been enough for the Government of India to take a serious look at the way India’s External Affairs Minister and the ministry was functioning.
The first blunder committed by MEA Mr SM Krishna was on 6th July in Rajya Sabha when he read out a statement on the first anniversary of the attack on Indian Embassy in Kabul which a number of diplomatic and security personnel had lost their lives .But he was not able to answer any question on what had the government done for the dependents of those victims and it was the former Minister of state for External Affairs, Anand Sharma who saved Mr Krishna from being pilloried on the floor of the House.
The second was Mr Krishna’s reply in Lok Sabha on 29th July on the mention of Balochistan in Indo-Pak joint statement issues at Sharm el Sheikh between Prime ministers of India and Pakistan. The entire opposition walked out of the House in protest against” unsatisfactory” reply from Mr Krishna and former External Affairs minister Mr Yashwant Sinha went to the extent of saying that “The country’s foreign policy would not be safe in Krishna’s hands. He would do to MEA in four months what Shivraj Patil took four years to do to Ministry of Home Affairs”.
While the UPA government would have got away with such “bloopers and blunders” because of its sheer strength in the House, yet the fact remains that the conduct of India’s foreign policy needs a serious re-think and a fresh approach in the light of the emerging set of challenges both at regional and global level.
Mr Krishna and Mr Tharoor may have looked like novices in the face of such thorny issues, but the fact is that it is the Prime Minister’s Office which has to take the major share of blame for such a faux pas both at Sharm-el Sheikh, as well as in Parliament for a variety of reasons.
The PMO has always dominated foreign policy issues from the very beginning and it went on exercising it’s “extra powers” even when it was not required.
It was Pandit Nehru who set the pattern for the formation of India’s foreign policy by thrusting a strong personal role for the Prime Minister and in the process, making the MEA a weak institutional structure. Nehru kept the MEA portfolio with himself because at that time he was the best person to handle this portfolio, because of his titanic and iconic international stature and experience. He took all the foreign policy decisions himself after consulting with his advisors and then entrusted the conduct of international affairs tothe senior members of the Indian Foreign Service (IFS).
His successor continued to exercise considerable control over India’s international dealings even through they appointed a separate minister for External Affairs. Mrs Indira Gandhi further strengthened the role of PMO in controlling MEA. She also established RAW for gathering intelligence and providing various kinds of inputs to the PMO and conducted overt operations abroad.
The PMO’s influence over MEA remained very strong during the regime of Mrs Gandhi and Shri Rajiv Gandhi for various reasons and one of the common factors was their giant international stature and influence. MEA was, on the other hand, stronger during the tenure of Morarji Desai, VP Singh, Chandrashekhar and PV Narasimha Rao,
The PMO under Dr Manmohan Singh has been successful in making itself as the supreme body, thanks to the dexterous manipulations by his NSA MK Narayanan and his principal Secretary TKA Nair and the coterie around them, even as Dr Singh could be a poor shadow of the Gandhis in terms of their international recognition and personal stature. Ministry of External Affairs has been functioning as “extended PMO” and no wonder then that India’s diplomatic and foreign policy conduct has remain amateurish because they have been handled by anyone, but career diplomats.
As long as Mr Pranab Mukerjee remained in command in MEA, there was some uniformity and consistency and India’s success in pinning down Pakistan post 26/11 at international fora was mainly because of his personal effort than that of his Ministry. But that advantage appears to have been frittered away now and the barrage of attack that both PM and MEA faced in the aftermath of the Sharm el Sheikh joint statement once again proved that India needed more seasoned diplomats who were well versed with nuances and conduct of cool and calculated diplomatic tasks and engagements than those politicians who were outclassed and outmaneuvered by UK and US educated Pakistani leaders and diplomats, when it came to the drafting and declarations couched in ambiguity and ambivalence.
No wonder then, as a former Foreign Secretary, said ‘whatever India gains on the ground, invariably loses on the diplomatic bargaining table. “
Need for a fresh perspective
MEA has been entrusted with task of foreign affairs, foreign policy making, actual implementation of the policy and the daily conduct of international relations. The Ministry’s duties include providing timely information and analysis to the PM as well MEA, recommending specific measures when necessary, planning policy for the future and maintaining communication with foreign missions in New Delhi.
In 1994, MEA administered 149 diplomatic missions abroad. The figure has gone up to 160 now and these missions have been staffed largely by members of IFS. That time the total cadre strength of IFS was 3490 out of which 1890 had been posted abroad and more than 1600 served in MEA head quarters in New Delhi. That strength has grown by 16 per cent by now. In 2007, Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon had announced that actual strength of the IFS engaged in task of performing diplomacy management was just 660 and he wanted to double the number because of its increasing role and presence as an emerging global power at various levels. It remains to be seen how much implementation of his plan was implemented in actual terms.
Apart from the management of day to day affairs of over 160 embassies and consulates abroad, MEA has more than 13 territorial divisions, each covering a large area of the world. It also has functional Divisions dealing with external publicity, protocol, consular affairs, Indians abroad, the UN and other international organizations and international conferences. Two other divisions among the total of 18 have special role to play. One is the policy planning and research division whose task is to conduct research and prepare briefs and background papers for top policy makers and Ministry officials. The second is the Economic Wing, entrusted with the task of handling foreign economic relations.
Despite all these support systems, Mr Krishna was found faltering in his role as EAM, whether it was racial attacks on Indian students in Australia, or Sri Lanka and even on Pakistan. His utterances have proved that he is out of depth in grasping the basics of foreign policy, let alone its nuances. He still needs the help of handouts to speak on specific issues and at press conferences, he has developed the habit of side-stepping even the most pertinent questions.
He refused to speak even in Lok Sabha on Pakistan saying “most of the issues have been answered by the PM and Mr Pranab Mukerjee”. That he was very uncomfortable in his role as MEA was proved in the joint Press Conference with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In hindsight, the wisdom of appointing Shri S.M Krishna, who hitherto had not stepped outside the state of Karnataka, as EAM, is seriously under a cloud. It might as well be asked why Dr. Karan Singh could not have been considered. Today, no other person seems to possess better credentials to be the EAM than Dr. Singh.
On the other hand, National Security Advisor MK Narayanan appears to be the Super External Affairs Minister, as he has been actively involved inMEA even on matters of routine posting, a terrain that apparently interests him more than policy matters that he is expected to handle.
But this state of affairs points towards a bigger malaise and the buck stops at the door of the Prime Minister himself. It is this that provoked historian Ramchandra Guha to say that the men in their ‘70s are handling India’s foreign policy in the complex scenario of 2009 when we live in a global world of shifting alliances, where the sole superpower status of US is being challenged by a rising China, a combative Russia and a less than deferential European nations.
He underscores the need for a more seasoned handling of foreign policy by experienced people fromthe diplomatic corps who have a better understanding of diplomacy and foreign policy. Mr Krishna is 77 years old and his professional acquaintance in international affairs has been scanty beyond Karnataka. Dr Manmohan Singh is 76 years and his area of expertise has by and large, remained economics and finance. National Security Advisor Mr MK Narayanan is 75 years comes from the police Service and many experts have gone to the extent of saying that “his police background promotes a tunnel vision that impedes a wider understanding of regional and global issues and forces”, says Guha.
As compared to them, the overall age of their US and European counterparts is much younger (in 50s and 60s) be it Hillary Clinton (61) British Foreign Secretary David Milliband (44), his German counterpart Frank Walter Steinmeier (53) and Pakistani Foreign Affairs Minister Makhdoom Qureshi is of the same age.(53). To this one might add the ‘kid on the block’ – 48 year old President of the United States of America.
If one were to trace the Indian foreign policy, particularly from ‘90s onwards, one would be at wit’s end if asked to count foreign policy successes. India is surrounded by a hostile neighbourhood and we cannot count even one nation as our friend – a fact at which our foreign policy mandarins should hang their heads in shame. The only instance of success that would possibly come to mind is the Indo-US nuclear deal. This too, however comes with a rider. The government could not even sell the deal properly within the country. Our political class too needs to understand that politicisation of foreign policy issues comes at the peril of the international prestige of the nation.
“To work in the realm of foreign affairs or national security requires one to be awake at all hours and alert to all possibilities, to be comfortable with modern technology and to be interested even in the obscure parts of the world and finally, to be willing to travel long distances at the drop of a hat” says Mr Guha.
This, according to some experts, was one of the reasons why Mr Pranab Mukherjee opted out of MEA because he could not take on the rigours of frequent travel abroad.
Under these circumstances, it is pertinent that the conduct of diplomacy and foreign policy is entrusted into competent hands where India’s national and external security, economic and business interests are secured and acted upon as per its capacity for ambitious and effective international actions.
It remains open to debate whether the Indian ship of State could sail in the rocky ocean of global politics by even one old man in his seventies and in India we still have a trio? The naked truth remains that neither of the three Stalwarts have theproven credentials as a good diplomat, a foreign policy expert, or a strategic thinker.
If the likely contours of Indian foreign policy were to be summed up in one sentence it would be that it should – “Try to resemble tea leaves and show its colour when in hot water.” The immediate need of the hour therefore, is to find an EAM who can steer the ship of foreign policy out of the choppy waters it presently is in.
Reviving India's Foreign Policy... Part II
23 July 2009
There goes a saying about diplomacy. It is said, “Diplomacy is alcohol with lots of Protocol”. India’s Foreign Service is in drastic need of an overhaul. Awash with massive funds for alcohol and protocol, the outlook of Foreign Service officers can be summed up as – (i) Foreign postings (ii) Cocktail parties and (iii) Playing Golf!!! In fact, an IFS officer is once said to have told a junior, “Subordinates are for working, officers are for playing golf”!!
Background :
Prior to 1997, when I.K Gujral became the Prime Minister, the Ministry of External Affairs was a non-descript organisation. During Gujral’s tenure, MEA reached the ‘take- off stage’ from where it has never looked back ever since. Gujral gave overriding importance to MEA since he had been EAM at one point of time and was himself a diplomat. The tight grip that MEA acquired over PMO and the media has not slackened even after 12 years even as three Prime Ministers have changed since then !!.
It was during Gujral’s tenure that a core team of IFS officers was constituted to look into ways and means to gain a place of pride and also to acquire more and more turf. It has since been engaged in a ‘turf war’ - acquiring and regaining turf to its advantage. However, in doing so, it has seriously compromised on foreign policy interests of the nation. As an instance, one of the erstwhile senior IFS officers could find loads of time to pen books at will!!
The core team of IFS officers concluded that getting IFS officers posted in PMO was one sure shot way of gaining influence in the government. In addition, with the massive funds available at its disposal, it decided to meet all the expenditure of GHO. (PMO has a Government Hospitality Organisation (GHO) which organises functions, particularly at PM House. MEA decided to meet all the expenditure incurred by GHO and the same practice continues even today.
Past and Present:
At present, the MEA calls the shots on foreign policy. This is because it jealously guards its ‘turf’ and secondly, is wary of the massive bungling of the financial resources being highlighted and the myth of its ‘expertise on foreign policy’ being shattered. (There have been several instances where during PM’s trips abroad, taxis and cell phones have been hired at exorbitant rates. In some cases, one cell phone has been hired at rates in which cell phones could have been purchased for good). Similarly, there have been instances where even Union Ministers on foreign trips have not been allotted rooms befitting their status!!! For long, several MPs have, in person, expressed dissatisfaction with the MEA’s style of functioning. However, as MEA has successfully projected that any issue handled by anyone other than IFS officer can have international ramifications and could lead to diplomatic cul-de-sac, no one has gathered the courage to come out openly against the errant ways of IFS officers – who often like to be called ‘mandarins’ (then they talk of taking on China)!!!
There are similar instances where IFS officers have goofed up big time. Anil Maitrani once introduced his credentials to the then Slovac President along with a local whore as his wife!! On Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Malaysia in December 2005, the unruly behaviour of a journalist almost created a huge diplomatic row and embarrassment. Though the journalist made sexual advances to a Malaysian girl, was no doubt inebriated, the onus lay on MEA and IFS officers who organise such events where the scope for such misdemeanours is optimised. Similarly, on one of the visits of Prime Minister to Russia, IFS officials and the entire media contingent was made to wait for two hours outside Kremlin in zero temperature!! Neither the foreign ministry ‘Czars’ nor the media had the gumption to utter even a word in the freezing cold!!!!
On PM’s foreign trips, several ‘airy’ IFS officers can be seen only aboard the aircraft. One of the very senior IFS officers could once be seen demanding the ‘per diem’ (daily allowance that is given to all members of the PM’s accompanying delegation) soon after landing in the hotel.
The IFS lobby has already tightened its grip around MEA and the two MoS’s. This is evident from the composition of the personal staff of the Ministers. Whereas in every other Ministry, the personal staff of Ministers is the prerogative of the concerned Minister, it is strangely not the case with MEA!!. It is because” those lobbies” don’t want either the Minister or MOS to disturb their domain in the name of Foreign policy expertise.
It is also because other Ministers had no idea of what exactly cooks within MEA at various levels. But a seasoned diplomat like Dr Shashi Tharoor needs to shake that up and establish his own team of Advisers to run the Ministry and there is no hard and fast law that he should not have his own set of advisers and people to follow up his instructions.
A Futuristic Roadmap:
The MEA should, in consultation with Prime Minister and Congress president, gradually move to regain control of formulation of foreign policy. This can be done by drafting in foreign policy experts from various streams – viz JNU academicians, media commentators, journalists, Indian Information Service officers (but only those possessing qualifications and experience in the field of media before joining service). The services of these people can be used as think-tanks to provide inputs to Mr Krishna , Dr Tharoor and Prime Minister and some of them could also be posted as Press Attaches in Embassies and High Commissions the world over. This would naturally provide the government an opportunity to seek qualitative and dispassionate inputs from experts outside the domain of MEA and also break the stranglehold of IFS.
Prime Minister and EAM must discourage the posting of IFS officers in PMO – except in most deserving cases. Can IFS officers provide better inputs for formulation of foreign policy only when they are posted to PMO? If that indeed be the case, why deny other equally, if not more deserving experts, a similar opportunity – in PMO as well as in MEA?
An effective audit of funds should be made to ensure that funds placed at the disposal of MEA are not squandered away in lesser pursuits and to foot the bills of the shenanigans of IFS officers. Unfortunately, this has happened many times in the past even without the knowledge of Minister for External Affairs. !
In sum, IFS officers have become too big for their boots – and they threaten to accentuate their feet of clay, if not checked in time.
It is here that a senior and learned person like Mr S M Krishna and Dr Tharoor could not only tame those errand IFS officer who have” made various lobbies” within the Ministry, he can as well make them sweat and not allowed himself to be “ bullied or influenced “by those persons at crucial positions.
It is here that a compact team of good and well-informed persons in his core team would be of tremendous help.
Our policy makers and Ministers in Charge must bear in mind that the folly of an IFS officer in charge of a particular assignment would only result in his recall or transfer but it would be a huge embarrassment and loss for the Minister because he is responsible to the Parliament and the people of the country for every action and initiative in the name of Foreign policy
There goes a saying about diplomacy. It is said, “Diplomacy is alcohol with lots of Protocol”. India’s Foreign Service is in drastic need of an overhaul. Awash with massive funds for alcohol and protocol, the outlook of Foreign Service officers can be summed up as – (i) Foreign postings (ii) Cocktail parties and (iii) Playing Golf!!! In fact, an IFS officer is once said to have told a junior, “Subordinates are for working, officers are for playing golf”!!
Background :
Prior to 1997, when I.K Gujral became the Prime Minister, the Ministry of External Affairs was a non-descript organisation. During Gujral’s tenure, MEA reached the ‘take- off stage’ from where it has never looked back ever since. Gujral gave overriding importance to MEA since he had been EAM at one point of time and was himself a diplomat. The tight grip that MEA acquired over PMO and the media has not slackened even after 12 years even as three Prime Ministers have changed since then !!.
It was during Gujral’s tenure that a core team of IFS officers was constituted to look into ways and means to gain a place of pride and also to acquire more and more turf. It has since been engaged in a ‘turf war’ - acquiring and regaining turf to its advantage. However, in doing so, it has seriously compromised on foreign policy interests of the nation. As an instance, one of the erstwhile senior IFS officers could find loads of time to pen books at will!!
The core team of IFS officers concluded that getting IFS officers posted in PMO was one sure shot way of gaining influence in the government. In addition, with the massive funds available at its disposal, it decided to meet all the expenditure of GHO. (PMO has a Government Hospitality Organisation (GHO) which organises functions, particularly at PM House. MEA decided to meet all the expenditure incurred by GHO and the same practice continues even today.
Past and Present:
At present, the MEA calls the shots on foreign policy. This is because it jealously guards its ‘turf’ and secondly, is wary of the massive bungling of the financial resources being highlighted and the myth of its ‘expertise on foreign policy’ being shattered. (There have been several instances where during PM’s trips abroad, taxis and cell phones have been hired at exorbitant rates. In some cases, one cell phone has been hired at rates in which cell phones could have been purchased for good). Similarly, there have been instances where even Union Ministers on foreign trips have not been allotted rooms befitting their status!!! For long, several MPs have, in person, expressed dissatisfaction with the MEA’s style of functioning. However, as MEA has successfully projected that any issue handled by anyone other than IFS officer can have international ramifications and could lead to diplomatic cul-de-sac, no one has gathered the courage to come out openly against the errant ways of IFS officers – who often like to be called ‘mandarins’ (then they talk of taking on China)!!!
There are similar instances where IFS officers have goofed up big time. Anil Maitrani once introduced his credentials to the then Slovac President along with a local whore as his wife!! On Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s visit to Malaysia in December 2005, the unruly behaviour of a journalist almost created a huge diplomatic row and embarrassment. Though the journalist made sexual advances to a Malaysian girl, was no doubt inebriated, the onus lay on MEA and IFS officers who organise such events where the scope for such misdemeanours is optimised. Similarly, on one of the visits of Prime Minister to Russia, IFS officials and the entire media contingent was made to wait for two hours outside Kremlin in zero temperature!! Neither the foreign ministry ‘Czars’ nor the media had the gumption to utter even a word in the freezing cold!!!!
On PM’s foreign trips, several ‘airy’ IFS officers can be seen only aboard the aircraft. One of the very senior IFS officers could once be seen demanding the ‘per diem’ (daily allowance that is given to all members of the PM’s accompanying delegation) soon after landing in the hotel.
The IFS lobby has already tightened its grip around MEA and the two MoS’s. This is evident from the composition of the personal staff of the Ministers. Whereas in every other Ministry, the personal staff of Ministers is the prerogative of the concerned Minister, it is strangely not the case with MEA!!. It is because” those lobbies” don’t want either the Minister or MOS to disturb their domain in the name of Foreign policy expertise.
It is also because other Ministers had no idea of what exactly cooks within MEA at various levels. But a seasoned diplomat like Dr Shashi Tharoor needs to shake that up and establish his own team of Advisers to run the Ministry and there is no hard and fast law that he should not have his own set of advisers and people to follow up his instructions.
A Futuristic Roadmap:
The MEA should, in consultation with Prime Minister and Congress president, gradually move to regain control of formulation of foreign policy. This can be done by drafting in foreign policy experts from various streams – viz JNU academicians, media commentators, journalists, Indian Information Service officers (but only those possessing qualifications and experience in the field of media before joining service). The services of these people can be used as think-tanks to provide inputs to Mr Krishna , Dr Tharoor and Prime Minister and some of them could also be posted as Press Attaches in Embassies and High Commissions the world over. This would naturally provide the government an opportunity to seek qualitative and dispassionate inputs from experts outside the domain of MEA and also break the stranglehold of IFS.
Prime Minister and EAM must discourage the posting of IFS officers in PMO – except in most deserving cases. Can IFS officers provide better inputs for formulation of foreign policy only when they are posted to PMO? If that indeed be the case, why deny other equally, if not more deserving experts, a similar opportunity – in PMO as well as in MEA?
An effective audit of funds should be made to ensure that funds placed at the disposal of MEA are not squandered away in lesser pursuits and to foot the bills of the shenanigans of IFS officers. Unfortunately, this has happened many times in the past even without the knowledge of Minister for External Affairs. !
In sum, IFS officers have become too big for their boots – and they threaten to accentuate their feet of clay, if not checked in time.
It is here that a senior and learned person like Mr S M Krishna and Dr Tharoor could not only tame those errand IFS officer who have” made various lobbies” within the Ministry, he can as well make them sweat and not allowed himself to be “ bullied or influenced “by those persons at crucial positions.
It is here that a compact team of good and well-informed persons in his core team would be of tremendous help.
Our policy makers and Ministers in Charge must bear in mind that the folly of an IFS officer in charge of a particular assignment would only result in his recall or transfer but it would be a huge embarrassment and loss for the Minister because he is responsible to the Parliament and the people of the country for every action and initiative in the name of Foreign policy
Reviving India's Foreign Policy part 1
External Affairs minister Mr SM krishna’s comment that” the foreign policy is not being made simply by the foreign Affairs minister—but the cabinet”
is a smart attempt on his part to cover up for the lapses of his own turf. Whether is the Oz issue or his periodical comments on Indo_Pak relations, there is a clear indication that Mr Krishna still does not have a clear command over his Ministry and there is no fresh initiative to re-cast and re-draft the overall approach of External Affairs ministry in the light of the changing world scenario as well as developments in South Asian region.
In today’s ‘global village’ foreign policy, economy and defence & internal security of a country, or a region, have become first cousins and the trio has also come to acquire a ‘cause-effect’ relation. Any development in one sphere is bound to have a cascading effect on the other two. Despite nation-states being inter-dependent for economy and security on each other, foreign policy objectives of nations are as diverse as the colours of the spectrum.
However, while most other nations are more or less, clear-headed about their foreign policy goals, the Indian foreign policy, on the contrary, appears to be stuck in a time- warp. This is largely due to the fact that foreign policy has come to be looked upon as the ‘exclusive preserve’ of the Indian Foreign Service – be it in the realm of politics, or the bureaucracy. Till IFS raises the white flag to the intense ‘turf war’, things are not likely to change much. The efforts of IFS have to be actively supplemented by the civil society – from within the country and the Indian Diaspora settled across the globe.
Today, foreign policy has to be a balanced and judicious mix of perception management, subtle, yet aggressive posturing on vital international issues, stoutly defending the nation’s interests wherever necessary and deciphering diplomatic nuances. Till the time, India led the NAM, its foreign policy was a resounding success, but the break-up of erstwhile USSR and emergence of US as the only superpower of the unipolar world changed the equations drastically.
The nation must have foreign policy that has a vision, is forward-looking and sets it apart from others in the region. The time-tested dictum that ‘There are no permanent friends or enemies in international politics - only permanent interests’ must be remembered. Today, no nation can be treated as a ‘Pariah’. The foreign policy establishment could draw inspiration from P.V Narasimha Rao’s tenets – ‘Look East’ policy and bringing India’s relations with Israel on to the surface. South Block would also do well to dig out one of the exhaustive notes on China, once prepared by K.R. Narayanan as Deputy Secretary of China Desk and see how best it can be activated in the changed context and times.
China and Pakistan serve as two test cases of the sluggishness and pusillanimity of India’s foreign policy. Traditionally, India has never trusted China, but our foreign policy is never able to project this untrustworthiness of China in a subtle manner to the world community. If at all, the much unpublicised faux pas involving Pandit Nehru and V.K Krishna Menon (when the word ‘suzeranity’ was erroneously written as ‘sovereignty’ vis-à-vis China) is also one of the major reasons plaguing our relations with China.
As for perception management, China even with its ‘Iron Curtain’ and ‘closed’ social structures has never allowed the Tiananmen massacre to tarnish its image on the world stage. It has rather projected itself as an attractive investment destination and expanded its economic share in the world market!!! On the contrary, India has been unable to change the West’s perception of being an ‘unsafe’ country – particularly for women and as an unattractive investment destination.
The jungle law of ‘Might is Right’ seems to apply to the field of international relations too. Moreover, it may be pertinent to note that China has resolved its boundary disputes with most of its neighbours, except India. In fact, Indian Army’s Directorate General of Military Operations apprehends a Chinese attack on India by 2017! The scenario visualises China launching an Information Warfare before launching a short, but intense offensive against India. In such a scenario, India’s precarious relations with smaller nations on its flanks like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Tibet and Bhutan could spell double trouble for India!!
As for Pakistan, it continues to be an ever festering sore for India. As Chanakya once said – “What peace can we expect from a rascal friend?” Despite attacks on our self-respect on Mumbai in 1993, Kargil in 1999 and Mumbai in 2008 (not to talk of numerous other attacks from time to time), we still continue to talk peace with Pakistan!!! Do we need more proofs in the form of more terror attacks to convince ourselves of the insincerity and deceitful attitude of Pakistan? Kautilya said this possibly for Pakistan – “Do not inhabit a country where you are not respected, cannot earn your livelihood, have no friends, or cannot acquire knowledge.” Ironically, the cradle of Chanakya Niti – Taxila University is today situated in Pakistan!!
Rajendra Mathur, one of the doyens of Hindi journalism had once written of Pakistan – ‘Just as in Physics, you have ‘matter’ and ‘anti-matter’, among nations you have ‘states’ and ‘anti-states’. Pakistan is an ‘anti-state’!! Rather than bashing up an ‘errant junior classmate’, India all the time seems to be pleading to the school authorities for justice!! Despite our best efforts, US has for decades been funding Pakistan – ostensibly to keep China at bay, but somewhere down the line US seems to be wary of the ‘rise and rise’ of India. At the risk of crying over spilt milk, it is pointed out that India committed a cardinal sin in returning 5, 000 sq miles of captured Pakistani territory, without getting Pakistan to accede to some tough pre-conditions.
India needs to aggressively push forward with the policy of ‘concentric circles’ to counter China’s ‘string of pearls’. India must establish military/political/economic/cultural relations with its neighbours – Mongolia, Russia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan in a bid to encircle China.
As for US, its stakes lie in the ‘Great Asian Game’. It wishes to encircle China with the help of India and Pakistan. India should ensure that it doesn’t end up becoming the ‘pawn’ on the chessboard between US and China. Most importantly, India must not sign on the dotted line on CTBT and ward off the latest pressure being mounted by US on CTBT.
Our foreign policy has to shed the status of India being a ‘soft State’. The soft power status is the reason why smaller nations like Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, often even though being propped up financially, have the gumption to stare India in its eyes! Most of these nations kowtow to China, on the other hand.
The recent spate of attacks on Indians in Australia too has been an instance of the utter failure of our foreign policy. To quote Chanakya Niti again – “Wise men should never go into a country where the people have no dread of anybody, have no sense of shame, no intelligence, or a charitable disposition.” India should have at least handed out the threat of recalling all its citizens in retaliation to mount pressure on the Australian Government! At the very least, India should now vehemently raise the demand of convening a Commonwealth Summit just to discuss this issue.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE:
Diplomacy is game of "constants" and "variables' where an alert and well informed minister, as well as ambassadors always must score over their counterparts. While, a few salient features of India's foreign policy would always remain the "core" of its interaction with the world comity, there are certain factors which keep changing and these" variables' need to be looked into and seriously examined from time to time in the light of the emerging, economic, political and diplomatic realities as various levels.
Need for Fresh policy initiatives:
1. A fresh look at various regions and the emerging political and diplomatic challenges across the globe.
2. A blueprint for the emerging global economic order in the light of present economic recession is the urgent need of the hour. Another blueprint for fresh set economic challenges and the need for economic offensive through diplomatic channel and need for more viable and long-term economic cooperation through diplomatic initiatives.
3. Combating terrorism through constructive engagements and increased cooperation on information sharing and improved strategic ties.
4. A more proactive role by our Press Attaches posted at various places through diplomatic missions across the globe. Their clear brief should be a) keep an eagle's eye on the political developments, diplomatic and economic development in that country from India’s perspective and keep the ministry posted on a regular basis and b) information on terrorist groups which cast an evil eye on India and c) keep a watch on Indians in that country to avoid an Australia-like situation.
5. A fresh perspective on the entire Middle East. Find more ways and means to further strengthen relationships on an individual basis. The recession has also affected the GCC for the first time and India needs to take a fresh look at bilateral ties, need to review and revise the contours of the present engagement and look for a bigger role in their economy.
6. A fresh policy initiative on Pakistan. India not only needs to isolate Pakistan and call its bluffs, but also needs to keep her continuously on the back foot not, only at international fora, but also at regional and bilateral interactions through dexterous and deft handling of various issues.
7. Pakistan Desk in MEA needs to play a more pro-active role in digging out every small development on a regular basis.
8. Sri Lanka would be a major challenge after the death of LTTE chief Prabhakaran. India should not only ensure a respectable rehabilitation of displaced Tamil population but also see to it that the tiny island nation does not pose any security threat to India in future. India needs to make Lanka totally subservient to its needs and desires.
9. There should be a major thrust on increased bilateral and multi-lateral trade and commerce. India needs to explore the possibility for more economic ties. This is one area where our efforts have been mostly on a piecemeal basis. MEA needs to work out a comprehensive study and future plans for more gains in economic and trade terms and hence the need for proper accentuation.
10. Above all, there has to be an overall paradigm shift in our foreign policy and every region and continent needs to be viewed afresh. India needs to compartmentalize various regions in order of priority and work upon various, strategies, parameters and issues for maxim diplomatic gains.
11. Indian foreign policy establishment is found particularly wanting in media management in major events. A point in case is the Agra Summit. Even otherwise, Pakistan invariably scores points over India in handling media on various occasions. As pointed out earlier, in today’s world, Information Warfare is a potent tool – but one which must be used extremely cautiously and selectively. Indeed, India need not go hyper over the Information Warfare, but it must have an action plan in place – if need be. For this, the foreign policy establishment must draft in media professionals – from within the Government and from the field of journalism alike.
Considering the vast stakes, foreign policy managers must draw up a vast, experienced think-tank, drawn from experts on international relations defence & internal security and economy (the likes of G. Parthasarthi, Jasjit Singh and P. Sainath). The think-tank should devise and present a common strategy to the Government so that India can take the appointed seat it so richly deserves in the comity of nations. For that to happen, the foreign policy has to break free from its ‘exclusivity’ mould. Else, the foreign policy will remain a policy that is largely ‘foreign’ - in principle.
is a smart attempt on his part to cover up for the lapses of his own turf. Whether is the Oz issue or his periodical comments on Indo_Pak relations, there is a clear indication that Mr Krishna still does not have a clear command over his Ministry and there is no fresh initiative to re-cast and re-draft the overall approach of External Affairs ministry in the light of the changing world scenario as well as developments in South Asian region.
In today’s ‘global village’ foreign policy, economy and defence & internal security of a country, or a region, have become first cousins and the trio has also come to acquire a ‘cause-effect’ relation. Any development in one sphere is bound to have a cascading effect on the other two. Despite nation-states being inter-dependent for economy and security on each other, foreign policy objectives of nations are as diverse as the colours of the spectrum.
However, while most other nations are more or less, clear-headed about their foreign policy goals, the Indian foreign policy, on the contrary, appears to be stuck in a time- warp. This is largely due to the fact that foreign policy has come to be looked upon as the ‘exclusive preserve’ of the Indian Foreign Service – be it in the realm of politics, or the bureaucracy. Till IFS raises the white flag to the intense ‘turf war’, things are not likely to change much. The efforts of IFS have to be actively supplemented by the civil society – from within the country and the Indian Diaspora settled across the globe.
Today, foreign policy has to be a balanced and judicious mix of perception management, subtle, yet aggressive posturing on vital international issues, stoutly defending the nation’s interests wherever necessary and deciphering diplomatic nuances. Till the time, India led the NAM, its foreign policy was a resounding success, but the break-up of erstwhile USSR and emergence of US as the only superpower of the unipolar world changed the equations drastically.
The nation must have foreign policy that has a vision, is forward-looking and sets it apart from others in the region. The time-tested dictum that ‘There are no permanent friends or enemies in international politics - only permanent interests’ must be remembered. Today, no nation can be treated as a ‘Pariah’. The foreign policy establishment could draw inspiration from P.V Narasimha Rao’s tenets – ‘Look East’ policy and bringing India’s relations with Israel on to the surface. South Block would also do well to dig out one of the exhaustive notes on China, once prepared by K.R. Narayanan as Deputy Secretary of China Desk and see how best it can be activated in the changed context and times.
China and Pakistan serve as two test cases of the sluggishness and pusillanimity of India’s foreign policy. Traditionally, India has never trusted China, but our foreign policy is never able to project this untrustworthiness of China in a subtle manner to the world community. If at all, the much unpublicised faux pas involving Pandit Nehru and V.K Krishna Menon (when the word ‘suzeranity’ was erroneously written as ‘sovereignty’ vis-à-vis China) is also one of the major reasons plaguing our relations with China.
As for perception management, China even with its ‘Iron Curtain’ and ‘closed’ social structures has never allowed the Tiananmen massacre to tarnish its image on the world stage. It has rather projected itself as an attractive investment destination and expanded its economic share in the world market!!! On the contrary, India has been unable to change the West’s perception of being an ‘unsafe’ country – particularly for women and as an unattractive investment destination.
The jungle law of ‘Might is Right’ seems to apply to the field of international relations too. Moreover, it may be pertinent to note that China has resolved its boundary disputes with most of its neighbours, except India. In fact, Indian Army’s Directorate General of Military Operations apprehends a Chinese attack on India by 2017! The scenario visualises China launching an Information Warfare before launching a short, but intense offensive against India. In such a scenario, India’s precarious relations with smaller nations on its flanks like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Tibet and Bhutan could spell double trouble for India!!
As for Pakistan, it continues to be an ever festering sore for India. As Chanakya once said – “What peace can we expect from a rascal friend?” Despite attacks on our self-respect on Mumbai in 1993, Kargil in 1999 and Mumbai in 2008 (not to talk of numerous other attacks from time to time), we still continue to talk peace with Pakistan!!! Do we need more proofs in the form of more terror attacks to convince ourselves of the insincerity and deceitful attitude of Pakistan? Kautilya said this possibly for Pakistan – “Do not inhabit a country where you are not respected, cannot earn your livelihood, have no friends, or cannot acquire knowledge.” Ironically, the cradle of Chanakya Niti – Taxila University is today situated in Pakistan!!
Rajendra Mathur, one of the doyens of Hindi journalism had once written of Pakistan – ‘Just as in Physics, you have ‘matter’ and ‘anti-matter’, among nations you have ‘states’ and ‘anti-states’. Pakistan is an ‘anti-state’!! Rather than bashing up an ‘errant junior classmate’, India all the time seems to be pleading to the school authorities for justice!! Despite our best efforts, US has for decades been funding Pakistan – ostensibly to keep China at bay, but somewhere down the line US seems to be wary of the ‘rise and rise’ of India. At the risk of crying over spilt milk, it is pointed out that India committed a cardinal sin in returning 5, 000 sq miles of captured Pakistani territory, without getting Pakistan to accede to some tough pre-conditions.
India needs to aggressively push forward with the policy of ‘concentric circles’ to counter China’s ‘string of pearls’. India must establish military/political/economic/cultural relations with its neighbours – Mongolia, Russia, Vietnam, Myanmar, Bhutan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan in a bid to encircle China.
As for US, its stakes lie in the ‘Great Asian Game’. It wishes to encircle China with the help of India and Pakistan. India should ensure that it doesn’t end up becoming the ‘pawn’ on the chessboard between US and China. Most importantly, India must not sign on the dotted line on CTBT and ward off the latest pressure being mounted by US on CTBT.
Our foreign policy has to shed the status of India being a ‘soft State’. The soft power status is the reason why smaller nations like Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, often even though being propped up financially, have the gumption to stare India in its eyes! Most of these nations kowtow to China, on the other hand.
The recent spate of attacks on Indians in Australia too has been an instance of the utter failure of our foreign policy. To quote Chanakya Niti again – “Wise men should never go into a country where the people have no dread of anybody, have no sense of shame, no intelligence, or a charitable disposition.” India should have at least handed out the threat of recalling all its citizens in retaliation to mount pressure on the Australian Government! At the very least, India should now vehemently raise the demand of convening a Commonwealth Summit just to discuss this issue.
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE:
Diplomacy is game of "constants" and "variables' where an alert and well informed minister, as well as ambassadors always must score over their counterparts. While, a few salient features of India's foreign policy would always remain the "core" of its interaction with the world comity, there are certain factors which keep changing and these" variables' need to be looked into and seriously examined from time to time in the light of the emerging, economic, political and diplomatic realities as various levels.
Need for Fresh policy initiatives:
1. A fresh look at various regions and the emerging political and diplomatic challenges across the globe.
2. A blueprint for the emerging global economic order in the light of present economic recession is the urgent need of the hour. Another blueprint for fresh set economic challenges and the need for economic offensive through diplomatic channel and need for more viable and long-term economic cooperation through diplomatic initiatives.
3. Combating terrorism through constructive engagements and increased cooperation on information sharing and improved strategic ties.
4. A more proactive role by our Press Attaches posted at various places through diplomatic missions across the globe. Their clear brief should be a) keep an eagle's eye on the political developments, diplomatic and economic development in that country from India’s perspective and keep the ministry posted on a regular basis and b) information on terrorist groups which cast an evil eye on India and c) keep a watch on Indians in that country to avoid an Australia-like situation.
5. A fresh perspective on the entire Middle East. Find more ways and means to further strengthen relationships on an individual basis. The recession has also affected the GCC for the first time and India needs to take a fresh look at bilateral ties, need to review and revise the contours of the present engagement and look for a bigger role in their economy.
6. A fresh policy initiative on Pakistan. India not only needs to isolate Pakistan and call its bluffs, but also needs to keep her continuously on the back foot not, only at international fora, but also at regional and bilateral interactions through dexterous and deft handling of various issues.
7. Pakistan Desk in MEA needs to play a more pro-active role in digging out every small development on a regular basis.
8. Sri Lanka would be a major challenge after the death of LTTE chief Prabhakaran. India should not only ensure a respectable rehabilitation of displaced Tamil population but also see to it that the tiny island nation does not pose any security threat to India in future. India needs to make Lanka totally subservient to its needs and desires.
9. There should be a major thrust on increased bilateral and multi-lateral trade and commerce. India needs to explore the possibility for more economic ties. This is one area where our efforts have been mostly on a piecemeal basis. MEA needs to work out a comprehensive study and future plans for more gains in economic and trade terms and hence the need for proper accentuation.
10. Above all, there has to be an overall paradigm shift in our foreign policy and every region and continent needs to be viewed afresh. India needs to compartmentalize various regions in order of priority and work upon various, strategies, parameters and issues for maxim diplomatic gains.
11. Indian foreign policy establishment is found particularly wanting in media management in major events. A point in case is the Agra Summit. Even otherwise, Pakistan invariably scores points over India in handling media on various occasions. As pointed out earlier, in today’s world, Information Warfare is a potent tool – but one which must be used extremely cautiously and selectively. Indeed, India need not go hyper over the Information Warfare, but it must have an action plan in place – if need be. For this, the foreign policy establishment must draft in media professionals – from within the Government and from the field of journalism alike.
Considering the vast stakes, foreign policy managers must draw up a vast, experienced think-tank, drawn from experts on international relations defence & internal security and economy (the likes of G. Parthasarthi, Jasjit Singh and P. Sainath). The think-tank should devise and present a common strategy to the Government so that India can take the appointed seat it so richly deserves in the comity of nations. For that to happen, the foreign policy has to break free from its ‘exclusivity’ mould. Else, the foreign policy will remain a policy that is largely ‘foreign’ - in principle.
India's Anti-dote
14 February 2009( Presentation in a Seminar)
INDIA'S ANTI-DOTE (DOCTRINE ON TERRORISM EXTERMINATION)
Terrorism is today a trans-national, globally ubiquitous phenomenon. It has never known any frontiers. Terrorism thrives mainly on three things: (i) brainwashing the youth through sustained misinformation, (ii) financing the terrorists through money and arms and ammunition, (iii) raising the bogey of religion. Thus, at the outset, it needs to be borne in mind that terrorism needs a hard, cold-blooded approach. The response has to cut down entirely on the emotional side to the response, though strong emotions are a logical corollary in the aftermath of such incidents as Mumbai attacks.
What is needed today is a well thought-out doctrine on extermination of terrorism. Most importantly, an environment has to be created where people are convinced and motivated to take the lead actively in countering terrorism. They need to be told that as masses are the worst sufferers of terror attacks, the lead to counter terrorism effectively has to come from the people (cite the instance of Punjab where terrorism was repulsed due to people's active involvement). People's active support – financially and in providing manpower should convince them that it is not just another political gimmick. However, this initiative should remain free from politicisation and its success lies in its sound and rigorous implementation.
This initiative must be entirely indigenous in nature, without any foreign help of any kind – ideologically, or financially. India must demonstrate to the world that it is entirely capable of defeating terrorism on its own.
For the sake of clarity, the proposed Doctrine would have the following sub-parts:
I. Security
II. Finance
III. Intelligence
IV. Handling aftermath of a terror attack
V. Media controls and information dissemination
DOABLES:
I ) SECURITY –
(a) Electronic multi-purpose ID card: To make security foolproof, a concept of a computerised, electronic multi-purpose ID card has to be implemented. The ID card should also carry the name of the Indian domicile state to which the person belongs. It should carry regularly updated personal and professional details of the individual. This multi-purpose ID card should be developed and produced in such a manner that it is almost impossible to duplicate or forge it. In this way, a centralised database can be maintained, particularly for anti-social elements and criminals.
(b) Registering and deregistering: Introduce the principle followed in Germany of 'registering' and 'deregistering', when people move from one state to another to settle down permanently. Ensure that there are no legal cases pending, or any outstanding personal or bank loans against the person.
(c) Citizen Task Force: In every state, a Citizen Task Force must be raised. The Task Force should include able-bodied youth between the ages of 18 and 35. Each city could ideally have 100-200 youth (depending on the size and population of the city) who are given special commando and specific anti-terror training, as well as equipment. A sub-division of the Task Force could include professionals who could counter the medical/psychological fallouts of a terror attack. The help of institutions like Armed Forces and NSG could be sought in this connection to train and equip this citizen force. For obvious reasons, Mumbai could be made a model city. If successful, the initiative could be replicated in other cities too.
(d) Introduce Conscription: Introduce conscription (with a compulsory five year military service) for all able-bodied men and women between the age of 18 and 50. This will not only instil self-discipline among the youth, but also ensure that there is no dearth of manpower in our Defence Forces at any point of time.
(e) Make Martial Arts compulsory in Schools/colleges: Martial arts must be made compulsory in all schools/colleges throughout the country. Those students who excel in martial arts, could be later on considered to be inducted into the Citizen Task Force and given commando training. This step would also come in handy, just in case there is a terror scare in any educational institution, as schools/children are one of the must vulnerable sections. A precedent exists (though not in India ) when students were made hostages in a school in Chechnya .
II) FINANCE:
(a) Terror Relief Fund: A separate Terror Relief Fund (TRF) needs to be constituted where money/donations accruing from various sources must be deposited. The Fund should be subjected to rigorous annual audits by uninterested, objective third party.
(b) Voluntary donation: A huge corpus of fund is the urgent need of the hour to counter the menace of terrorism. People could be asked to donate a sum annually (depending on each one's paying capacity and one's wherewithal). The entire mechanism has to be a non-government one and totally voluntary in nature, with absolutely no coercion whatsoever. However, people have to be convinced that the money will be utilized most judiciously and it is not just one of those money-spinning schemes. This money must be used to equip, arm and train a sizeable 'citizen force' and given commando training, to forcefully counter any terrorist attack Mumbai needs to be made a model city in this regard and could be taken up as a pilot case.
(c) Budgetary support: A certain percentage of the Union Budget (say 0.5 per cent) could be kept aside every year and the money utilised to pay compensation to terror victims. Similarly, states could be also be asked to set aside a percentage of their budgets to meet various expenses arising out of a terrorist attack.
(d) Donations from business/industrial houses: Business/Industrial houses should be motivated to donate liberally to Terror Relief Fund. Those business/industrial houses which make handsome donations could be given attractive tax concessions.
(e) No misuse of funds: This is one of the singular most important factors which could mean the difference between success, or failure against terrorism. Stringent checks and balances must be introduced to keep a track of the income/expenditure of TRF. If any one is found misusing funds earmarked for TRF, must be handed a death sentence.
III) Intelligence:
(a) Collecting inputs: The existing intelligence agencies must be overhauled and toned up thoroughly. A central command and control authority has to be put in place, where all the inputs are gathered and analysed. This control authority must give out necessary instructions on all issues pertaining to terrorism. The different intelligent agencies must be asked to concentrate on gathering inputs from states that share borders with our troublesome neighbours – for instance, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh, Seven Sister states of North East, Tamil Nadu, not to forget Jammu and Kashmir .
(b) Ground Zero contacts: Intelligence agencies must collect inputs on a daily basis from contacts at the ground level – for instance, fishermen, villagers living in border areas, tribals and street kids. The help of fishermen can be sought in patrolling the vast coastal borders.
(c) Pre-empt terror strikes: Till now, our intelligence has suffered from one major flaw. Despite inputs, we have rarely succeeded in pre-empting and thwarting a terror attack. At some stage, counter-terror strategy has to start thinking and planning like terrorists. Vulnerable targets have to be identified in advance. Often, terrorists will strike in crowded places – but in future, the attacks are likely to target the most vulnerable places - educational institutions, for instance.
IV) Handling aftermath of a terror attack:
(a) Exterminating the terrorists: Terrorists must be exterminated with minimum collateral damage. If a terrorist is arrested, give him only 72 hours to divulge the plot. With or without information, don't give him 73rd hour to live. No cases, no laws, no courts. For public consumption, it can be said that the terrorist consumed cyanide capsules, or show him as a human bomb and liquidate him.
(b) Casualties: The first and the foremost challenge in a terror attack is ascertaining the exact number of casualties. This should not vary and again centralised authority plays a crucial role.
(c) Injured: Urgent first aid and prompt hospitalisation can save precious lives. Ask all private medical practitioners, paramedics and nursing staff to pool in their services to the hospitals. A pool of such medicos can be prepared beforehand in all major cities and their credentials checked beforehand. Mock exercises from time to time can keep them on the alert all the time.
(d) Compensation: Though financial compensation can never compensate the lives lost, adequate compensation from the voluntary donations can be used to pay compensation. Business houses too could be asked to provide jobs to individuals of needy families.
V) Media Controls and Information Dissemination:
(a) Media – particularly the electronic media, and more so television thrives on visuals and 'sound bites'. Immediacy is both – its biggest appeal and its biggest drawback at the same time. The medium itself discourages deeper thought and analysis. It lives from one minute to another. In doing so, it has lost the sense, balance and proportion of what constitutes news. Thus, in specific cases of terror attacks, media, both print and electronic has to be kept at a safe distance from the scene of action.
(b) Media persons have to be confined to one place – a seemingly impossible task and given briefings by a designated authority from time to time. It could well be thrice a day.
(c) For the benefit of electronic media, after the attack has been foiled, an official cameraperson could provide the photographers and cameramen photographers and footage of the place.
(d) Media should be told not to provide publicity to the terrorists, but rather to the counter-terror operation. Personal and vivid details of the terrorists too need not be given. A terrorist does not have any name, religion and face – he is simply a terrorist.
(e) Media persons too should be given specific training in covering counter-terror operations and warlike situations. Only trained media personnel, with adequate protective gear/equipment must be allowed to cover terror attacks.
***
(The aim of this doctrine is not to replace the existing mechanisms but only to supplement them. Armed Forces, paramilitary forces, NSG and police forces have to be modernised and strengthened. Intelligence agencies too need to be equipped with latest equipment et al. People's participation in this doctrine is only intended to act as a 'second line of defence', which can ward off any future terror attack).
Part II
TERRORIST INCIDENTS IN INDIA – A DECADAL CHRONOLOGY
Date Place Fatalities
March 12, 1993 Mumbai 257
1997 Brahmaputra Mail Bombing
Feb 14, 1998 Coimbatore 46
Oct 1, 2001 J&K Assembly Complex 35
Dec 13, 2001 Parliament Complex 7
Dec 21, 2002 Kurnool Train Crash 20
Sep 10, 2002 Rafiganj Rail 130
Feb 27, 2002 Godhra
Sep 24, 2002 Akshardham, Gujarat 31
Mar 13, 2003 Mumbai commuter train 11
May 14, 2003 Army camp, Jammu 30
Aug 25, 2003 Mumbai – car bombs 52
Aug 15, 2004 Assam 16
2005 Jaunpur train bombing 13
July 5, 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi, Ayodhya 0
Oct 29, 2005 New Delhi – three locations 70
Mar 7, 2006 Sankatmochan, Varansi and
Varanasi Cantonment 21
July 11, 2006 Seven serial blasts in Mumbai 209
Sep 8, 2006 Serial blasts in Malegaon 37
Feb 18, 2007 Samjhauta Express 68
May 18, 2007 Mecca Masjid, Hyderabad 13
Aug 25, 2007 Lumbini Park , Hyderabad 42
Oct 11, 2007 Ajmer 3
Oct 14, 2007 Ludhiana on Eid-ul-Fitr 6
Nov 24, 2007 Courthouse complexes in Lucknow , 16
Varanasi and Faizabad
May 13, 2008 Jaipur 63
July 25, 2008 Bangalore 2
July 26, 2008 Ahmedabad 29
Sep 13, 2008 Delhi – five blasts 21
Sep 27, 2008 Mehrauli, New Delhi 1
Sep 29, 2008 Maharashtra and Gujarat 10
Sep 29, 2008 Bike blasts in Malegaon 7
Oct 1, 2008 Agartala 4
Oct 21, 2008 Imphal 17
Oct 30, 2008 Assam 77
Nov 26, 2008 Mumbai 171
Jan. 01 and 09 Guwahati 7 and 4
A total number of 36 terrorist attacks in 10 years, making it 3.6 attacks per year.
Total of 1, 535 people killed over a decade, or 153 people killed every year.
Most of the attacks have happened in the latter half of months – i.e between 15th and 30th of each month.
Mumbai and North East have been attacked five (5) times each, and New Delhi four (4) times.
In 2008, the pattern since attack in Jaipur has been that the terrorists have been striking on alternate months. Consider this pattern:
May 13 – Jaipur
June ---- No attack
July 26 – Ahmedabad
August – No attack
September 13 - Delhi
October - No attack
November 26 - Mumbai
December - No attack till now
January 1,09 Guwahati
February Where ??
INDIA'S ANTI-DOTE (DOCTRINE ON TERRORISM EXTERMINATION)
Terrorism is today a trans-national, globally ubiquitous phenomenon. It has never known any frontiers. Terrorism thrives mainly on three things: (i) brainwashing the youth through sustained misinformation, (ii) financing the terrorists through money and arms and ammunition, (iii) raising the bogey of religion. Thus, at the outset, it needs to be borne in mind that terrorism needs a hard, cold-blooded approach. The response has to cut down entirely on the emotional side to the response, though strong emotions are a logical corollary in the aftermath of such incidents as Mumbai attacks.
What is needed today is a well thought-out doctrine on extermination of terrorism. Most importantly, an environment has to be created where people are convinced and motivated to take the lead actively in countering terrorism. They need to be told that as masses are the worst sufferers of terror attacks, the lead to counter terrorism effectively has to come from the people (cite the instance of Punjab where terrorism was repulsed due to people's active involvement). People's active support – financially and in providing manpower should convince them that it is not just another political gimmick. However, this initiative should remain free from politicisation and its success lies in its sound and rigorous implementation.
This initiative must be entirely indigenous in nature, without any foreign help of any kind – ideologically, or financially. India must demonstrate to the world that it is entirely capable of defeating terrorism on its own.
For the sake of clarity, the proposed Doctrine would have the following sub-parts:
I. Security
II. Finance
III. Intelligence
IV. Handling aftermath of a terror attack
V. Media controls and information dissemination
DOABLES:
I ) SECURITY –
(a) Electronic multi-purpose ID card: To make security foolproof, a concept of a computerised, electronic multi-purpose ID card has to be implemented. The ID card should also carry the name of the Indian domicile state to which the person belongs. It should carry regularly updated personal and professional details of the individual. This multi-purpose ID card should be developed and produced in such a manner that it is almost impossible to duplicate or forge it. In this way, a centralised database can be maintained, particularly for anti-social elements and criminals.
(b) Registering and deregistering: Introduce the principle followed in Germany of 'registering' and 'deregistering', when people move from one state to another to settle down permanently. Ensure that there are no legal cases pending, or any outstanding personal or bank loans against the person.
(c) Citizen Task Force: In every state, a Citizen Task Force must be raised. The Task Force should include able-bodied youth between the ages of 18 and 35. Each city could ideally have 100-200 youth (depending on the size and population of the city) who are given special commando and specific anti-terror training, as well as equipment. A sub-division of the Task Force could include professionals who could counter the medical/psychological fallouts of a terror attack. The help of institutions like Armed Forces and NSG could be sought in this connection to train and equip this citizen force. For obvious reasons, Mumbai could be made a model city. If successful, the initiative could be replicated in other cities too.
(d) Introduce Conscription: Introduce conscription (with a compulsory five year military service) for all able-bodied men and women between the age of 18 and 50. This will not only instil self-discipline among the youth, but also ensure that there is no dearth of manpower in our Defence Forces at any point of time.
(e) Make Martial Arts compulsory in Schools/colleges: Martial arts must be made compulsory in all schools/colleges throughout the country. Those students who excel in martial arts, could be later on considered to be inducted into the Citizen Task Force and given commando training. This step would also come in handy, just in case there is a terror scare in any educational institution, as schools/children are one of the must vulnerable sections. A precedent exists (though not in India ) when students were made hostages in a school in Chechnya .
II) FINANCE:
(a) Terror Relief Fund: A separate Terror Relief Fund (TRF) needs to be constituted where money/donations accruing from various sources must be deposited. The Fund should be subjected to rigorous annual audits by uninterested, objective third party.
(b) Voluntary donation: A huge corpus of fund is the urgent need of the hour to counter the menace of terrorism. People could be asked to donate a sum annually (depending on each one's paying capacity and one's wherewithal). The entire mechanism has to be a non-government one and totally voluntary in nature, with absolutely no coercion whatsoever. However, people have to be convinced that the money will be utilized most judiciously and it is not just one of those money-spinning schemes. This money must be used to equip, arm and train a sizeable 'citizen force' and given commando training, to forcefully counter any terrorist attack Mumbai needs to be made a model city in this regard and could be taken up as a pilot case.
(c) Budgetary support: A certain percentage of the Union Budget (say 0.5 per cent) could be kept aside every year and the money utilised to pay compensation to terror victims. Similarly, states could be also be asked to set aside a percentage of their budgets to meet various expenses arising out of a terrorist attack.
(d) Donations from business/industrial houses: Business/Industrial houses should be motivated to donate liberally to Terror Relief Fund. Those business/industrial houses which make handsome donations could be given attractive tax concessions.
(e) No misuse of funds: This is one of the singular most important factors which could mean the difference between success, or failure against terrorism. Stringent checks and balances must be introduced to keep a track of the income/expenditure of TRF. If any one is found misusing funds earmarked for TRF, must be handed a death sentence.
III) Intelligence:
(a) Collecting inputs: The existing intelligence agencies must be overhauled and toned up thoroughly. A central command and control authority has to be put in place, where all the inputs are gathered and analysed. This control authority must give out necessary instructions on all issues pertaining to terrorism. The different intelligent agencies must be asked to concentrate on gathering inputs from states that share borders with our troublesome neighbours – for instance, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Uttaranchal, Uttar Pradesh, Seven Sister states of North East, Tamil Nadu, not to forget Jammu and Kashmir .
(b) Ground Zero contacts: Intelligence agencies must collect inputs on a daily basis from contacts at the ground level – for instance, fishermen, villagers living in border areas, tribals and street kids. The help of fishermen can be sought in patrolling the vast coastal borders.
(c) Pre-empt terror strikes: Till now, our intelligence has suffered from one major flaw. Despite inputs, we have rarely succeeded in pre-empting and thwarting a terror attack. At some stage, counter-terror strategy has to start thinking and planning like terrorists. Vulnerable targets have to be identified in advance. Often, terrorists will strike in crowded places – but in future, the attacks are likely to target the most vulnerable places - educational institutions, for instance.
IV) Handling aftermath of a terror attack:
(a) Exterminating the terrorists: Terrorists must be exterminated with minimum collateral damage. If a terrorist is arrested, give him only 72 hours to divulge the plot. With or without information, don't give him 73rd hour to live. No cases, no laws, no courts. For public consumption, it can be said that the terrorist consumed cyanide capsules, or show him as a human bomb and liquidate him.
(b) Casualties: The first and the foremost challenge in a terror attack is ascertaining the exact number of casualties. This should not vary and again centralised authority plays a crucial role.
(c) Injured: Urgent first aid and prompt hospitalisation can save precious lives. Ask all private medical practitioners, paramedics and nursing staff to pool in their services to the hospitals. A pool of such medicos can be prepared beforehand in all major cities and their credentials checked beforehand. Mock exercises from time to time can keep them on the alert all the time.
(d) Compensation: Though financial compensation can never compensate the lives lost, adequate compensation from the voluntary donations can be used to pay compensation. Business houses too could be asked to provide jobs to individuals of needy families.
V) Media Controls and Information Dissemination:
(a) Media – particularly the electronic media, and more so television thrives on visuals and 'sound bites'. Immediacy is both – its biggest appeal and its biggest drawback at the same time. The medium itself discourages deeper thought and analysis. It lives from one minute to another. In doing so, it has lost the sense, balance and proportion of what constitutes news. Thus, in specific cases of terror attacks, media, both print and electronic has to be kept at a safe distance from the scene of action.
(b) Media persons have to be confined to one place – a seemingly impossible task and given briefings by a designated authority from time to time. It could well be thrice a day.
(c) For the benefit of electronic media, after the attack has been foiled, an official cameraperson could provide the photographers and cameramen photographers and footage of the place.
(d) Media should be told not to provide publicity to the terrorists, but rather to the counter-terror operation. Personal and vivid details of the terrorists too need not be given. A terrorist does not have any name, religion and face – he is simply a terrorist.
(e) Media persons too should be given specific training in covering counter-terror operations and warlike situations. Only trained media personnel, with adequate protective gear/equipment must be allowed to cover terror attacks.
***
(The aim of this doctrine is not to replace the existing mechanisms but only to supplement them. Armed Forces, paramilitary forces, NSG and police forces have to be modernised and strengthened. Intelligence agencies too need to be equipped with latest equipment et al. People's participation in this doctrine is only intended to act as a 'second line of defence', which can ward off any future terror attack).
Part II
TERRORIST INCIDENTS IN INDIA – A DECADAL CHRONOLOGY
Date Place Fatalities
March 12, 1993 Mumbai 257
1997 Brahmaputra Mail Bombing
Feb 14, 1998 Coimbatore 46
Oct 1, 2001 J&K Assembly Complex 35
Dec 13, 2001 Parliament Complex 7
Dec 21, 2002 Kurnool Train Crash 20
Sep 10, 2002 Rafiganj Rail 130
Feb 27, 2002 Godhra
Sep 24, 2002 Akshardham, Gujarat 31
Mar 13, 2003 Mumbai commuter train 11
May 14, 2003 Army camp, Jammu 30
Aug 25, 2003 Mumbai – car bombs 52
Aug 15, 2004 Assam 16
2005 Jaunpur train bombing 13
July 5, 2005 Ram Janmabhoomi, Ayodhya 0
Oct 29, 2005 New Delhi – three locations 70
Mar 7, 2006 Sankatmochan, Varansi and
Varanasi Cantonment 21
July 11, 2006 Seven serial blasts in Mumbai 209
Sep 8, 2006 Serial blasts in Malegaon 37
Feb 18, 2007 Samjhauta Express 68
May 18, 2007 Mecca Masjid, Hyderabad 13
Aug 25, 2007 Lumbini Park , Hyderabad 42
Oct 11, 2007 Ajmer 3
Oct 14, 2007 Ludhiana on Eid-ul-Fitr 6
Nov 24, 2007 Courthouse complexes in Lucknow , 16
Varanasi and Faizabad
May 13, 2008 Jaipur 63
July 25, 2008 Bangalore 2
July 26, 2008 Ahmedabad 29
Sep 13, 2008 Delhi – five blasts 21
Sep 27, 2008 Mehrauli, New Delhi 1
Sep 29, 2008 Maharashtra and Gujarat 10
Sep 29, 2008 Bike blasts in Malegaon 7
Oct 1, 2008 Agartala 4
Oct 21, 2008 Imphal 17
Oct 30, 2008 Assam 77
Nov 26, 2008 Mumbai 171
Jan. 01 and 09 Guwahati 7 and 4
A total number of 36 terrorist attacks in 10 years, making it 3.6 attacks per year.
Total of 1, 535 people killed over a decade, or 153 people killed every year.
Most of the attacks have happened in the latter half of months – i.e between 15th and 30th of each month.
Mumbai and North East have been attacked five (5) times each, and New Delhi four (4) times.
In 2008, the pattern since attack in Jaipur has been that the terrorists have been striking on alternate months. Consider this pattern:
May 13 – Jaipur
June ---- No attack
July 26 – Ahmedabad
August – No attack
September 13 - Delhi
October - No attack
November 26 - Mumbai
December - No attack till now
January 1,09 Guwahati
February Where ??
Terrorism-Emerging Trend and India
27 February 2009
Terrorism: The emerging Trend and India
Exerpts from a Lecture
The terror attack in Mumbai on 26thNovember was yet another grim reminder to the changing face and contours of terrorism and the advantage of the terrorist about the time and the target. It was for the first time that public places with thronging population were chosen to inflict ,maximum damage in term s of lives and destruction of properties. It also proved that terrorists were extremely well-trained and fought like professional mercenaries.
The incident not only exposed many chinks in the amour of law and order machinery, it also exposed many lacunae in the government's response to a problem of such magnitude. In addition, it raised many questions about the conduct of media on such occasions.
Terrorists, governments, and the media see the function, roles and responsibilities of the media when covering terrorist events from differing and often competing perspectives. Such perspectives drive behavior during terrorist incidents--often resulting in both tactical and strategic gains to the terrorist operation and the overall terrorist cause. The challenge to both the governmental and press communities is to understand the dynamics of terrorist enterprise and to develop policy options designed to serve the interests of government, the media, and the society.
Terrorists must have publicity in some form if they are to gain attention, inspire fear and respect, and secure favorable understanding of their cause, if not their act. Governments need public understanding, cooperation, restraint, and loyalty in efforts to limit terrorist harm to society and in efforts to punish or apprehend those responsible for terrorist acts. Journalists and the media in general pursue the freedom to cover events and issues without restraint, especially governmental restraint.
Three new trends appear to be emerging which impact on the relationship between the media, the terrorist, and government. These include: (1) anonymous terrorism; (2) more violent terrorist incidents; and (3) terrorist attacks on media personnel and institutions.
A number of options, none without costs and risks, exist for enhancing the effectiveness of government media-oriented responses to terrorism and for preventing the media from furthering terrorist goals as a byproduct of vigorous and free reporting. These include: (1) financing joint media/government training exercises; (2) establishing a government terrorism information response center; (3) promoting use of media pools; (4) promoting voluntary press coverage guidelines; and (5) monitoring terrorism against the media.
The media and the government have common interests in seeing that the media are not manipulated into promoting the cause of terrorism or its methods. But policymakers do not want to see terrorism, or anti-terrorism, eroding freedom of the press--one of the pillars of democratic societies. This appears to be a dilemma that cannot be completely reconciled--one with which societies will continually have to struggle. The challenge for policymakers is to explore mechanisms enhancing media/government cooperation to accommodate the citizen and media need for honest coverage while limiting the gains uninhibited coverage may provide terrorists or their cause. Communication between the government and the media here is an important element in any strategy to prevent terrorist causes and strategies from prevailing and to preserve democracy
COMPETING PERSPECTIVES ON THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA WHEN COVERING TERRORIST EVENTS
Terrorists, governments, and the media see the function, roles and responsibilities of the media, when covering terrorist events, from differing and often opposing perspectives. Such perceptions drive respective behaviors during terrorist incidents--often resulting in tactical and strategic gains, or losses, to the terrorist operation and the overall terrorist cause. The challenge to the governmental and press community is to understand the dynamics of terrorist enterprise and to develop policy options to serve government, media and societal interests.
WHAT TERRORISTS WANT FROM MEDIA
Terrorists need publicity, usually free publicity that a group could normally not afford or buy. Any publicity surrounding a terrorist act alerts the world that a problem exists that cannot be ignored and must be addressed. From a terrorist perspective, an unedited interview with a major figure is a treasured prize, such as the May 1997 CNN interview with Saudi dissident, terrorist recruiter and financier Osama Bin Ladin. For news networks, access to a terrorist is a hot story and is usually treated as such.
They seek a favorable understanding of their cause, if not their act. One may not agree with their act but this does not preclude being sympathetic to their plight and their cause. Terrorists believe the public "needs help" in understanding that their cause is just and terrorist violence is the only course of action available to them against the superior evil forces of state and establishment. Good relationships with the press are important here and they are often cultivated and nurtured over a period of years.
Terrorist organizations may also seek to court, or place, sympathetic personnel in press positions--particularly in wire services--and in some instances may even seek to control smaller news organizations through funding.
Legitimacy. Terrorist causes want the press to give legitimacy to what is often portrayed as ideological or personality feuds or divisions between armed groups and political wings. For the military tactician, war is the continuation of politics by other means; for the sophisticated terrorist, politics is the continuation of terror by other means. IRA and Hamas are examples of groups having "political" and "military" components. Musa Abu Marzuq, for example, who was in charge of the political wing of Hamas is believed to have approved specific bombings and assassinations. Likewise, the "dual hat" relationship of Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein--the purported political wing of the IRA--to other IRA activities is subject to speculation. Distinctions are often designed to help people join the ranks, or financially contribute to the terrorist organization.
They also want the press to notice and give legitimacy to the findings and viewpoints of specially created non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and study centers that may serve as covers for terrorist fund raising, recruitment, and travel by terrorists into the target country. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad-funded and controlled World and Islam Studies Enterprise is but one known example.
In hostage situations--terrorists need to have details on identity, number and value of hostages, as well as details about pending rescue attempts, and details on the public exposure of their operation. Particularly where state sponsors are involved, they want details about any plans for military retaliation.
Terrorist organizations seek media coverage that causes damage to their enemy. This is particularly noticeable when the perpetrators of the act and the rationale for their act remain unclear. They want the media to amplify panic, to spread fear, to facilitate economic loss (like scaring away investment and tourism), to make populations loose faith in their governments' ability to protect them, and to trigger government and popular overreaction to specific incidents and the overall threat of terrorism.
WHAT GOVERNMENT LEADERS WANT FROM THE MEDIA
Governments seek understanding, cooperation, restraint, and loyalty from the media in efforts to limit terrorist harm to society and in efforts to punish or apprehend those responsible for terrorist acts, specifically:
They want coverage to advance their agenda and not that of the terrorist. From their perspective, the media should support government courses of action when operations are under way and disseminate government provided information when requested. This includes understanding of policy objectives, or at least a balanced presentation, e.g., why governments may seek to mediate, yet not give in to terrorist demands.
An important goal is to separate the terrorist from the media--to deny the terrorist a platform unless to do so is likely to contribute to his imminent defeat.
Another goal is to have the media present terrorists as criminals and avoid glamorizing them; to foster the viewpoint that kidnapping a prominent person, blowing up a building, or hijacking an airplane is a criminal act regardless of the terrorists' cause.
In hostage situations, governments often prefer to exclude the media and others from the immediate area, but they want the news organizations to provide information to authorities when reporters have access to the hostage site.
They seek publicity to help diffuse the tension of a situation, not contribute to it. Keeping the public reasonably calm is an important policy objective.
It is generally advantageous if the media, especially television, avoids "weeping mother" emotional stories on relatives of victims, as such coverage builds public pressure on governments to make concessions.
During incidents, they wish to control terrorist access to outside data--to restrict information on hostages that may result in their selection for harm; government strongly desires the media not to reveal planned or current anti-terrorist actions or provide the terrorists with data that helps them.
After incidents, they want the media not to reveal government secrets or detail techniques on how successful operations were performed--and not to publicize successful or thwarted terrorist technological achievements and operational methods so that copycat terrorists do not emulate or adapt them.
They want the media to be careful about disinformation from terrorist allies, sympathizers, or others who gain from its broadcast and publication. Many groups have many motives for disseminating inaccurate or false data, including, for example, speculation as to how a plane may have been blown up, or who may be responsible.
They want the media to boost the image of government agencies. Agencies may carefully control leaks to the press giving scoops to newsmen who depict the agency favorably and avoid criticism of its actions.
They would like journalists to inform them when presented with well grounded reasons to believe a terrorist act may be in the making or that particular individuals may be involved in terrorist activity.
In extreme cases, where circumstances permit, vital national security interests may be at stake, and chances of success high, they may seek cooperation of the media in disseminating a ruse that would contribute to neutralizing the immediate threat posed by terrorists. In common criminal investigations involving heinous crimes, such media cooperation is not uncommon--when media members may hold back on publication of evidence found at a crime scene or assist law enforcement officials by publishing misleading information or a non-promising lead to assist authorities in apprehending a suspect by, for example, lulling him or her into a false sense of security.
WHAT THE MEDIA WANT WHEN COVERING TERRORIST INCIDENTS OR ISSUES
Journalists generally want the freedom to cover an issue without external restraint--whether it comes media owners, advertisers, editors, or from the government.
Media want to be the first with the story. The scoop is golden, "old news is no news." Pressure to transmit real time news instantly in today's competitive hi-tech communication environment is at an all-time high.
The media want to make the story as timely and dramatic as possible, often with interviews, if possible. During the June 1985 TWA Flight 847 hijack crisis, ABC aired extensive interviews with both hijackers and hostages. (A photo was even staged of a pistol aimed at the pilot's head.
Most media members want to be professional and accurate and not to give credence to disinformation, however newsworthy it may seem. This may not be easily done at times, especially when systematic efforts to mislead them are undertaken by interested parties.
They want to protect their ability to operate as securely and freely as possible in the society. In many instances, this concern goes beyond protecting their legal right to publish relatively unrestrained; it includes personal physical security. They want protection from threat, harassment, or violent assault during operations, and protection from subsequent murder by terrorists in retaliation providing unfavorable coverage
They want to protect society's right to know, and construe this liberally to include popular and dramatic coverage, e.g., airing emotional reactions of victims, family members, witnesses, and "people on the street," as well as information withheld by law enforcement, security, and other organs of government.
Media members often have no objection to playing a constructive role in solving specific terrorist situations if this can be done without excessive cost in terms of story loss or compromise of values.
OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
A number of options might be considered to improve government/media interaction when responding to or covering terrorist incidents. These include: (1) financing joint media/government training exercises; (2) establishing a government terrorism information response center; (3) promoting use of media pools for hostage-centered terrorist events; (4) establishing and promoting voluntary press coverage guidelines; and (5) monitoring terrorism against the media.
FINANCING JOINT GOVERNMENT/MEDIA TRAINING EXERCISES
Effective public relations usually precedes a story--rather than reacts to it. Nations can beneficially employ broad public affairs strategies to combat terrorist-driven initiatives, and the media can play an important role within the framework of such a strategy. Training exercises are vital: exercises such as those conducted by George Washington University and the Technology Institute in Holon, Israel, which bring together government officials and media representatives to simulate government response and media coverage of mock terrorist incidents. Promoting and funding of similar programs on a broad scale internationally is an option for consideration. India can also think of such an exercise.
ESTABLISHING A GOVERNMENT TERRORIST INFORMATION RESPONSE CENTER
One option the Govt of India might consider would be establishment of a standing government terrorist information response center (TIRC) working directly under ministry of Internal security. Such a center, by agreement with the media, could have on call (through communication links) a rapid reaction terrorism reporting pool composed of senior network, wire-service, and print media representatives. Network coverage of incidents would then be coordinated by the network representative in the center. Such a center could be headed by a government spokesperson (the Terrorism Information Coordinator, TIC) who could seek to promptly seize the information and contexting initiative from the particular terrorist group.
Too often, when terror strikes take place in India, there is a vacuum of news other than the incident itself, and by the time the government agencies agree on and fine tune what can be said and what positions are to be taken, the government information initiative is lost.
PROMOTING USE OF MEDIA POOLS
Another option that has been mentioned specifically for coverage of hostage type events, would be use of a media pool where all agree on the news for release at the same time. A model would need to be established. However, media agreement would not be easily secured.
PROMOTING VOLUNTARY PRESS COVERAGE GUIDELINES
Another option would be establishment by the media of a loose code of voluntary behavior or guidelines that editors and reporters could access for guidance. The national broadcasting Authority(NBA) has been given the mandate to regulate news content in the country in such circumstances and the broadcasters too have agreed to ban Live phone ins with terrorists, avoid broadcasting security operations and drop repeated shots of the aftermath of violent crimes.. However, there is a need for senior network and print media executives to develop voluntary guidelines on terrorism reporting.
Areas for discussion might be drawn from the practices of some important media members and include guidelines on:
Limiting information on hostages which could harm them: e.g., number, nationality, official positions, how wealthy they may be, or important relatives they have;
Limiting information on military, or police, movements during rescue operations;
Limiting or agreeing not to air live unedited interviews with terrorists;
Checking sources of information carefully when the pressure is high to report information that may not be accurate--as well as limiting unfounded speculation;
Toning down information that may cause widespread panic or amplify events which aid the terrorist by stirring emotions sufficiently to exert irrational pressure on decision makers.
Television:- the bigger nuisance
Television News channel came under sharp attack in the Mumbai terror incident for various reasons. Media channels ran LIVE images of gunmen spraying bullets into the crowds of people. One Tv news channel aired an interview with the terrorists that virtually amounted to giving them a platform to espouse their cause. At least 7 news channels ran LIVE shots of commandos dropped on the roof of the Jewish centre at Nariman point .This led many people to comment that the electronic media failed to rise to the occasions. Instead of being somb and regulated, the electronic media appeared to be over-excited and it showed everything as if it was" reporting a war ALIVE"
Many television experts agree Television news amplifies and brings together different threats and insecurities (economic, human, environmental) in a number of intersecting ways. It does this through:
· Promoting immediacy, intimacy, and visuality as core criteria for determining news agendas. These news values make television news the most effective global delivery system for terror events. Hence, it is not an exaggeration to state that the medium has become 'weaponised'. Television is not merely an instrument of war but an actual constituent of terrorism today.
· Rolling 24 hour news alongside internet news sites serve to encourage an exponential growth in speculative public discourses by journalists, 'experts', academics and pressure groups on the nature of existing and potential security threats, their conflation, and potential responses by government and military forces. Yet this speculative, expansive chatter also diminishes the significance of responses, as each becomes part of a surfeit of information, images, and 'opinion'.
Secondly, television news contains and softens threats and insecurities through:
· Repetition. TV news' prioritisation of liveness is matched by its compulsion to repeat, recycle, and reframe. Indeed, the value attributed to the footage of events offering dramatic immediacy and intimacy is also one of the criteria for their re-selection and re-use. In fact the notion of 'shock value' is a matter of ever diminishing returns.
· Fitting new stories into pre-existing templates that viewers are familiar with. This might be considered to reduce uncertainty and provide reassurance as to likely and knowable outcomes. But does fitting new stories into established frames and narratives necessarily enhance public understanding of issues"
· Sanitising the violent 'excesses' of conflict and warfare. Television news is subject to an economy of 'taste and decency' and to presumptions about the sensitivities of audiences. Television news is thus condemned by these thresholds that curtail the extent to which it can fully expose the worlds it connects and represents.
In case of Mumbai attack, electronic media made a mockery of itself. Reporters spoke lying down on the ground for hours as if they were treading through the hail of bullets. Worst still was the behavior of the celebrity reporters who virtually ran amuck …and some of them talked nonstop- nonsense. A few of them were so off the mark, stale and staid that they appeared to be suffering not only from intellectual constipation but verbal diarrhea as well.
Suggestions
Have a fresh anti- terror doctrine
A central agency to tackle terror menace across the country.
NSG to be posted at all regional HQs for quick response .
A terrorism centre for quick info dissemination
A pro-active media-govt coordination machinery.
Terrorism: The emerging Trend and India
Exerpts from a Lecture
The terror attack in Mumbai on 26thNovember was yet another grim reminder to the changing face and contours of terrorism and the advantage of the terrorist about the time and the target. It was for the first time that public places with thronging population were chosen to inflict ,maximum damage in term s of lives and destruction of properties. It also proved that terrorists were extremely well-trained and fought like professional mercenaries.
The incident not only exposed many chinks in the amour of law and order machinery, it also exposed many lacunae in the government's response to a problem of such magnitude. In addition, it raised many questions about the conduct of media on such occasions.
Terrorists, governments, and the media see the function, roles and responsibilities of the media when covering terrorist events from differing and often competing perspectives. Such perspectives drive behavior during terrorist incidents--often resulting in both tactical and strategic gains to the terrorist operation and the overall terrorist cause. The challenge to both the governmental and press communities is to understand the dynamics of terrorist enterprise and to develop policy options designed to serve the interests of government, the media, and the society.
Terrorists must have publicity in some form if they are to gain attention, inspire fear and respect, and secure favorable understanding of their cause, if not their act. Governments need public understanding, cooperation, restraint, and loyalty in efforts to limit terrorist harm to society and in efforts to punish or apprehend those responsible for terrorist acts. Journalists and the media in general pursue the freedom to cover events and issues without restraint, especially governmental restraint.
Three new trends appear to be emerging which impact on the relationship between the media, the terrorist, and government. These include: (1) anonymous terrorism; (2) more violent terrorist incidents; and (3) terrorist attacks on media personnel and institutions.
A number of options, none without costs and risks, exist for enhancing the effectiveness of government media-oriented responses to terrorism and for preventing the media from furthering terrorist goals as a byproduct of vigorous and free reporting. These include: (1) financing joint media/government training exercises; (2) establishing a government terrorism information response center; (3) promoting use of media pools; (4) promoting voluntary press coverage guidelines; and (5) monitoring terrorism against the media.
The media and the government have common interests in seeing that the media are not manipulated into promoting the cause of terrorism or its methods. But policymakers do not want to see terrorism, or anti-terrorism, eroding freedom of the press--one of the pillars of democratic societies. This appears to be a dilemma that cannot be completely reconciled--one with which societies will continually have to struggle. The challenge for policymakers is to explore mechanisms enhancing media/government cooperation to accommodate the citizen and media need for honest coverage while limiting the gains uninhibited coverage may provide terrorists or their cause. Communication between the government and the media here is an important element in any strategy to prevent terrorist causes and strategies from prevailing and to preserve democracy
COMPETING PERSPECTIVES ON THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA WHEN COVERING TERRORIST EVENTS
Terrorists, governments, and the media see the function, roles and responsibilities of the media, when covering terrorist events, from differing and often opposing perspectives. Such perceptions drive respective behaviors during terrorist incidents--often resulting in tactical and strategic gains, or losses, to the terrorist operation and the overall terrorist cause. The challenge to the governmental and press community is to understand the dynamics of terrorist enterprise and to develop policy options to serve government, media and societal interests.
WHAT TERRORISTS WANT FROM MEDIA
Terrorists need publicity, usually free publicity that a group could normally not afford or buy. Any publicity surrounding a terrorist act alerts the world that a problem exists that cannot be ignored and must be addressed. From a terrorist perspective, an unedited interview with a major figure is a treasured prize, such as the May 1997 CNN interview with Saudi dissident, terrorist recruiter and financier Osama Bin Ladin. For news networks, access to a terrorist is a hot story and is usually treated as such.
They seek a favorable understanding of their cause, if not their act. One may not agree with their act but this does not preclude being sympathetic to their plight and their cause. Terrorists believe the public "needs help" in understanding that their cause is just and terrorist violence is the only course of action available to them against the superior evil forces of state and establishment. Good relationships with the press are important here and they are often cultivated and nurtured over a period of years.
Terrorist organizations may also seek to court, or place, sympathetic personnel in press positions--particularly in wire services--and in some instances may even seek to control smaller news organizations through funding.
Legitimacy. Terrorist causes want the press to give legitimacy to what is often portrayed as ideological or personality feuds or divisions between armed groups and political wings. For the military tactician, war is the continuation of politics by other means; for the sophisticated terrorist, politics is the continuation of terror by other means. IRA and Hamas are examples of groups having "political" and "military" components. Musa Abu Marzuq, for example, who was in charge of the political wing of Hamas is believed to have approved specific bombings and assassinations. Likewise, the "dual hat" relationship of Gerry Adams of Sinn Fein--the purported political wing of the IRA--to other IRA activities is subject to speculation. Distinctions are often designed to help people join the ranks, or financially contribute to the terrorist organization.
They also want the press to notice and give legitimacy to the findings and viewpoints of specially created non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and study centers that may serve as covers for terrorist fund raising, recruitment, and travel by terrorists into the target country. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad-funded and controlled World and Islam Studies Enterprise is but one known example.
In hostage situations--terrorists need to have details on identity, number and value of hostages, as well as details about pending rescue attempts, and details on the public exposure of their operation. Particularly where state sponsors are involved, they want details about any plans for military retaliation.
Terrorist organizations seek media coverage that causes damage to their enemy. This is particularly noticeable when the perpetrators of the act and the rationale for their act remain unclear. They want the media to amplify panic, to spread fear, to facilitate economic loss (like scaring away investment and tourism), to make populations loose faith in their governments' ability to protect them, and to trigger government and popular overreaction to specific incidents and the overall threat of terrorism.
WHAT GOVERNMENT LEADERS WANT FROM THE MEDIA
Governments seek understanding, cooperation, restraint, and loyalty from the media in efforts to limit terrorist harm to society and in efforts to punish or apprehend those responsible for terrorist acts, specifically:
They want coverage to advance their agenda and not that of the terrorist. From their perspective, the media should support government courses of action when operations are under way and disseminate government provided information when requested. This includes understanding of policy objectives, or at least a balanced presentation, e.g., why governments may seek to mediate, yet not give in to terrorist demands.
An important goal is to separate the terrorist from the media--to deny the terrorist a platform unless to do so is likely to contribute to his imminent defeat.
Another goal is to have the media present terrorists as criminals and avoid glamorizing them; to foster the viewpoint that kidnapping a prominent person, blowing up a building, or hijacking an airplane is a criminal act regardless of the terrorists' cause.
In hostage situations, governments often prefer to exclude the media and others from the immediate area, but they want the news organizations to provide information to authorities when reporters have access to the hostage site.
They seek publicity to help diffuse the tension of a situation, not contribute to it. Keeping the public reasonably calm is an important policy objective.
It is generally advantageous if the media, especially television, avoids "weeping mother" emotional stories on relatives of victims, as such coverage builds public pressure on governments to make concessions.
During incidents, they wish to control terrorist access to outside data--to restrict information on hostages that may result in their selection for harm; government strongly desires the media not to reveal planned or current anti-terrorist actions or provide the terrorists with data that helps them.
After incidents, they want the media not to reveal government secrets or detail techniques on how successful operations were performed--and not to publicize successful or thwarted terrorist technological achievements and operational methods so that copycat terrorists do not emulate or adapt them.
They want the media to be careful about disinformation from terrorist allies, sympathizers, or others who gain from its broadcast and publication. Many groups have many motives for disseminating inaccurate or false data, including, for example, speculation as to how a plane may have been blown up, or who may be responsible.
They want the media to boost the image of government agencies. Agencies may carefully control leaks to the press giving scoops to newsmen who depict the agency favorably and avoid criticism of its actions.
They would like journalists to inform them when presented with well grounded reasons to believe a terrorist act may be in the making or that particular individuals may be involved in terrorist activity.
In extreme cases, where circumstances permit, vital national security interests may be at stake, and chances of success high, they may seek cooperation of the media in disseminating a ruse that would contribute to neutralizing the immediate threat posed by terrorists. In common criminal investigations involving heinous crimes, such media cooperation is not uncommon--when media members may hold back on publication of evidence found at a crime scene or assist law enforcement officials by publishing misleading information or a non-promising lead to assist authorities in apprehending a suspect by, for example, lulling him or her into a false sense of security.
WHAT THE MEDIA WANT WHEN COVERING TERRORIST INCIDENTS OR ISSUES
Journalists generally want the freedom to cover an issue without external restraint--whether it comes media owners, advertisers, editors, or from the government.
Media want to be the first with the story. The scoop is golden, "old news is no news." Pressure to transmit real time news instantly in today's competitive hi-tech communication environment is at an all-time high.
The media want to make the story as timely and dramatic as possible, often with interviews, if possible. During the June 1985 TWA Flight 847 hijack crisis, ABC aired extensive interviews with both hijackers and hostages. (A photo was even staged of a pistol aimed at the pilot's head.
Most media members want to be professional and accurate and not to give credence to disinformation, however newsworthy it may seem. This may not be easily done at times, especially when systematic efforts to mislead them are undertaken by interested parties.
They want to protect their ability to operate as securely and freely as possible in the society. In many instances, this concern goes beyond protecting their legal right to publish relatively unrestrained; it includes personal physical security. They want protection from threat, harassment, or violent assault during operations, and protection from subsequent murder by terrorists in retaliation providing unfavorable coverage
They want to protect society's right to know, and construe this liberally to include popular and dramatic coverage, e.g., airing emotional reactions of victims, family members, witnesses, and "people on the street," as well as information withheld by law enforcement, security, and other organs of government.
Media members often have no objection to playing a constructive role in solving specific terrorist situations if this can be done without excessive cost in terms of story loss or compromise of values.
OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
A number of options might be considered to improve government/media interaction when responding to or covering terrorist incidents. These include: (1) financing joint media/government training exercises; (2) establishing a government terrorism information response center; (3) promoting use of media pools for hostage-centered terrorist events; (4) establishing and promoting voluntary press coverage guidelines; and (5) monitoring terrorism against the media.
FINANCING JOINT GOVERNMENT/MEDIA TRAINING EXERCISES
Effective public relations usually precedes a story--rather than reacts to it. Nations can beneficially employ broad public affairs strategies to combat terrorist-driven initiatives, and the media can play an important role within the framework of such a strategy. Training exercises are vital: exercises such as those conducted by George Washington University and the Technology Institute in Holon, Israel, which bring together government officials and media representatives to simulate government response and media coverage of mock terrorist incidents. Promoting and funding of similar programs on a broad scale internationally is an option for consideration. India can also think of such an exercise.
ESTABLISHING A GOVERNMENT TERRORIST INFORMATION RESPONSE CENTER
One option the Govt of India might consider would be establishment of a standing government terrorist information response center (TIRC) working directly under ministry of Internal security. Such a center, by agreement with the media, could have on call (through communication links) a rapid reaction terrorism reporting pool composed of senior network, wire-service, and print media representatives. Network coverage of incidents would then be coordinated by the network representative in the center. Such a center could be headed by a government spokesperson (the Terrorism Information Coordinator, TIC) who could seek to promptly seize the information and contexting initiative from the particular terrorist group.
Too often, when terror strikes take place in India, there is a vacuum of news other than the incident itself, and by the time the government agencies agree on and fine tune what can be said and what positions are to be taken, the government information initiative is lost.
PROMOTING USE OF MEDIA POOLS
Another option that has been mentioned specifically for coverage of hostage type events, would be use of a media pool where all agree on the news for release at the same time. A model would need to be established. However, media agreement would not be easily secured.
PROMOTING VOLUNTARY PRESS COVERAGE GUIDELINES
Another option would be establishment by the media of a loose code of voluntary behavior or guidelines that editors and reporters could access for guidance. The national broadcasting Authority(NBA) has been given the mandate to regulate news content in the country in such circumstances and the broadcasters too have agreed to ban Live phone ins with terrorists, avoid broadcasting security operations and drop repeated shots of the aftermath of violent crimes.. However, there is a need for senior network and print media executives to develop voluntary guidelines on terrorism reporting.
Areas for discussion might be drawn from the practices of some important media members and include guidelines on:
Limiting information on hostages which could harm them: e.g., number, nationality, official positions, how wealthy they may be, or important relatives they have;
Limiting information on military, or police, movements during rescue operations;
Limiting or agreeing not to air live unedited interviews with terrorists;
Checking sources of information carefully when the pressure is high to report information that may not be accurate--as well as limiting unfounded speculation;
Toning down information that may cause widespread panic or amplify events which aid the terrorist by stirring emotions sufficiently to exert irrational pressure on decision makers.
Television:- the bigger nuisance
Television News channel came under sharp attack in the Mumbai terror incident for various reasons. Media channels ran LIVE images of gunmen spraying bullets into the crowds of people. One Tv news channel aired an interview with the terrorists that virtually amounted to giving them a platform to espouse their cause. At least 7 news channels ran LIVE shots of commandos dropped on the roof of the Jewish centre at Nariman point .This led many people to comment that the electronic media failed to rise to the occasions. Instead of being somb and regulated, the electronic media appeared to be over-excited and it showed everything as if it was" reporting a war ALIVE"
Many television experts agree Television news amplifies and brings together different threats and insecurities (economic, human, environmental) in a number of intersecting ways. It does this through:
· Promoting immediacy, intimacy, and visuality as core criteria for determining news agendas. These news values make television news the most effective global delivery system for terror events. Hence, it is not an exaggeration to state that the medium has become 'weaponised'. Television is not merely an instrument of war but an actual constituent of terrorism today.
· Rolling 24 hour news alongside internet news sites serve to encourage an exponential growth in speculative public discourses by journalists, 'experts', academics and pressure groups on the nature of existing and potential security threats, their conflation, and potential responses by government and military forces. Yet this speculative, expansive chatter also diminishes the significance of responses, as each becomes part of a surfeit of information, images, and 'opinion'.
Secondly, television news contains and softens threats and insecurities through:
· Repetition. TV news' prioritisation of liveness is matched by its compulsion to repeat, recycle, and reframe. Indeed, the value attributed to the footage of events offering dramatic immediacy and intimacy is also one of the criteria for their re-selection and re-use. In fact the notion of 'shock value' is a matter of ever diminishing returns.
· Fitting new stories into pre-existing templates that viewers are familiar with. This might be considered to reduce uncertainty and provide reassurance as to likely and knowable outcomes. But does fitting new stories into established frames and narratives necessarily enhance public understanding of issues"
· Sanitising the violent 'excesses' of conflict and warfare. Television news is subject to an economy of 'taste and decency' and to presumptions about the sensitivities of audiences. Television news is thus condemned by these thresholds that curtail the extent to which it can fully expose the worlds it connects and represents.
In case of Mumbai attack, electronic media made a mockery of itself. Reporters spoke lying down on the ground for hours as if they were treading through the hail of bullets. Worst still was the behavior of the celebrity reporters who virtually ran amuck …and some of them talked nonstop- nonsense. A few of them were so off the mark, stale and staid that they appeared to be suffering not only from intellectual constipation but verbal diarrhea as well.
Suggestions
Have a fresh anti- terror doctrine
A central agency to tackle terror menace across the country.
NSG to be posted at all regional HQs for quick response .
A terrorism centre for quick info dissemination
A pro-active media-govt coordination machinery.
चैनल की भैंस और न्यूज रूम का चरवाहा
मीडिया सरकार पर एक बहुत ही तेज-तर्रार खबरिया चैनल की भैंस भरी दोपहर में ही डूबते देखक लगा कि वाकई सहाफत एक भद्दा मजाक सा बनकर रह गया है। न्यूज रूम के चंडूखाने से लेकर आसातरीन अफसरान भी राई का पहाड़ बनाने में लगे हुए हैं। एंकर के लफ्ज़ थे कि ‘भैंस बेरहमी से डूब रही है बिल्कुल शीशे की तरह कान में जा घुसा’ अरे भाई भैंस अगर पानी में नहीं डूबेगी और उतराएगी तो क्या किसी चैनल मालिक के स्वीमिंग पूल में अपनी अदाएं या नाज़ नखरे दिखाएगी? और वैसे भी भैंस जब बाढ़ में भी कई कोस तैर कर अपना थन झाड़ लेती है तो ससुरी तालाब में अपना प्राण क्यों गंवायेगी?
उस पर से तुर्रा ये कि ‘भैंस को बचाना है आंदोलन’ का चीखता हुआ बैंड और एंकर का ये फरमान कि ‘मैं अपने कैमरामैन से दर्खास्त करूंगी कि वो भैंस की जद्दो-जहद हमारे दर्शकों को दिखाए’
फिर जिज्ञासा एक और बिच्छू डंक एंकर का सवाल कि भैंस को बचाने की जिम्मेदारी किस विभाग की है। ‘पर तो दिमाग भन्नाया ‘ मगर उसके भी दिमागी दिवालियापन पर छक्का मारा रिपोर्टर महाशय ने ये कहते हुए कि हम आपको बता दें कि सरकार पूरी तरह से जिम्मेदार है.... वगैरह वगैरह... और बाकी खबरें सूखने के बाद......।
अरे भाई ये क्या है? ‘क्या ये वाकई चैनल की भैस या चैनलवालों की अक्ल की’ क्या भैंस डूबी या फिर रिपोर्टर और एंकर सहित न्यूज रूम के ठेकेदारों की आबरू भी? न्यूज चैनल खबरों का जखीरा हैं या फिर मसखरेपन का अड्डा बन गया है? खबरों की दुनिया क्या इतनी मुफलिस हो गई है? खबर्ची इतने जाहिल और ग़ाफिल हो गए हैं? या फिर सहाफत ही यतीम हो गया है? या फिर बदअखलाकी आसमान छू गई है?
एक नक्कारा और माजूर सहाफी ने अपनी चमड़ी बचाने के लिये पूरे चैनल के जमीर के उपर कब्जा कर लिया। और बाकी लोग इस नाकाबिले-बर्दाश्त वेवकूफी की जमकर मजम्मत करने के बदले अपनी अक्ल बेचकर उसी तमाशे में जलसे की तरह शरीक हो गए?
मगर खबरिया चैनलों की नई सच्चाई ये भी है। संगीन या जदीद खबरों से रगब़त अब कम दिखाई देने लगी है। 123 करोड़ की आबादी वाले इस मुल्क में खबरों की भरमार है मगर हम आज भी यही दलील देते हैं कि हम वही दिखाते हैं जो जनता चाहती हैं इल्म की कमी का नज़ारा तो तभी से दिखना शुरू हो गया था जब एक टीवी रिपोर्टर ने तत्कालीन गृह मंत्री स्वर्गीय इंद्रजीत गुप्ता से साक्षात्कार खत्म करने के बाद उनका नाम और विभाग पूछ लिया और मंत्रीजी सर पकड़कर बैठ गए थे।
जब जामियानगर में आतंकवादियों से मुठभेड़ के बाद पुलिस कमिश्नर एक संवाददाता सम्मेलन को संबोधित कर रहे थे तो एक रिपोर्टर ने सवाल दागा कि आतंकवादियों को एके 47 राइफल का लाइसेंस किसने दिया था?
अब ऐसे में खबरिया चैलनों की फौज अपनी बेवकूफी और बेतुकेपन से आम जनता के उपहास का पात्र न बने तो और क्या बने? खबरिया चैनल मज़ाक का मुअम्मा बनने लगे हैं तो इसमे हैरत की क्या बात है? जब ऐसी महारत वाले रिपोर्टरों को अपराध से संबंधित संगीन खबरों पर रिपोर्ट करने के लिए भेजा जाता है तो उस रिपोर्टर से ज्यादा तौहीन उस चैनल की होती है जिसके लिए वो काम करता है। ये ही वजह है कि कुछ लोगों की निगाह में रिपोर्टर बनना सबसे आसान काम बन गया है। इसके लिए किसी विशेष योग्यता की आवश्कता नहीं है बस थोड़ी सी शक्ल ठीक हो, एक दो नेताओं का वरदहस्त प्राप्त हो लंबे समय तक कैमरे के सामने जोरदार तरीके से अखंण्ड बकवास करने की क्षमता और माइक का इस्तेमाल ‘शमशीर’ की तरह करना आता हो तो आपकी नौकरी पक्की।
कहा जाता है कि टेलीविजन न्यूज सेंकेंड्स का खेल है जो बड़ी से बड़ी खबर को 90 सेंकेंड में खत्म कर दे वही बाज़ीगर है मगर ये बात लंबीचौड़ी फीस देकर कुछ खबरिया चैलनों द्वारा चलाए गए पत्रकारिता संस्थान की खान से निकले ‘कोहनूर ‘ नहीं समझ पाते हैं। उनका सबसे बड़ा मकसद ये होता है कि किसी तरह चैनल पर शक्ल दिखाई दे जाए उसके बाद तो पूरा बाजार मुट्ठी में है। पत्रकारिता की इस पौध को खबर के आगे या पीछे की ज्यादा जानकारी इसलिए नहीं हो पाती और सबसे बड़ी त्रासदी तब होती है जब किसी एंकर को रिपोर्टिंग करने भेज दिया जाता है जिसने कभी डेस्क पर काम नहीं किया खबर की चौहद्दी की बारीकी नहीं सीखी, जिसे माया, ममता और जयललिता के बीच फर्क नहीं मालूम ऐसे में लाइव रिपोर्टिंग में अगर वो सीबीआई और सीआईडी के बीच फर्क नहीं कर पातीं तो उनका क्या कसूर?
उससे से भी हैरतअंगेज है एसाइनमेंट डेस्क जो अब तक चैनल का दिल और धमनी माना जाता था मगर आज उसका गुर्दा बन गया है। ऐसे कई ‘न्यूजरूम’ जाकर देखिए तो वहां बैठे कई लोगों को देश का इतिहास-भूगोल का पता नहीं होता। उनके लिए कानपुर-नागपुर या मैसूर-बैंगलौर, दिल्ली के सरोजनीनगर-नौरोजीनगर जैसे लगते हैं। और जब उनके मुंह से हर दिन हैरतअंगेज फरमान जारी होता है तो हैरानी होती है।
मैं इसका कई बार भुक्तभोगी रहा हूं। एक वाकया याद आता है आजतक के दिनों का मैं किसी खबर खोजी के सिलसिले में मैसूर गया था कि एसाइनमेंट से फोन आया, आप मैसूर से फौरन निकले, सीधे कोयंबटूर जाएं। वहां दंगा हो गया है वो खबर शूट कर आप फौरन बैंगलौर वापस आकर अपलिंक करें। इसके पहले कि मैं कुछ कह सकता कि वो चिल्लाए ‘सुन रहे हैं कि नहीं आपको ये करना हैं और आगे में कुछ नहीं सुनना चाहता’
पता नहीं क्या हुआ जैसे तन बदन में आग लग गई फिर मैंने फोन उठाया और उन साहब को समझाया की उनके पास हिंदुस्तान का नक्शा सामने हो तो वो देख लें कि 5 घंटे में क्या उनके हुक्म की तामील होने की गुंजाइश है या नहीं।
मगर उनके मुंह से निकला एक और लफ्ज़ ने मेरे सब्र का बांध तोड़ दिया। और मैंने उनके साथ वो सलूक किया जो शायद वो आज भी याद रखते हैं और सामने दिख भी गए तो उनकी रूह फना होने लगती है। मैंने उनसे सिर्फ यही अर्ज किया था की मैसूर से कोयंबटूर की दूरी सिर्फ 478 किलोमीटर है और वहां से बैंगलौर 594 किलोमीटर है। मैं ना तो अंजनी पुत्र हूं की उड़ कर पहुंच जाऊं और पलक झपकते ही सारा कार्य संपन्न कर 5 घंटे में बैंगलौर आ जाऊं। बैंगलौर दूरदर्शन मेरे ससुर का तो है नहीं कि अपना ट्रासमीशन ब्रेक कर वो मुझे अपलिंक करने देगा।
मेरा आखिरी वाक्य यही था ‘अगर ये ही जाहिलों जैसी दोबारा हरकत की तो फोन से बाहर निकलकर मुंह पर थप्पड़ मारूंगा ‘।
मगर दिल्ली ऑफिस में तो बवाल हो गया। वो मोहतरम एसपी सिंह के सामने ऐसे रोए जैसे उनका शील भंग हो गया। बाद में एसपी सिंह को पूरी बात समझ में आई। वो फोन पर हंसते हुए बोले ‘बच्चों से मुंह न लगा करो। नालायक हैं ये लोग। पता नहीं कब सीखेंगे। खैर, कल ये खबर अपलिंक कर देना ‘।
मैंने जान पर खेल कर वो खबर तो कर दी मगर बदनाम भी हो गया। मेरा नाम डॉबरमैन रख दिया गया जो एक ही आदमी की कमांड सुनता था। जब भी बड़ी खबर होती थी या तो खुद एसपी सिंह बोले देते थे या मेरे हम नाम दोस्त स्वर्गीय अजय चौधरी जो मेरे बड़े अच्छे मित्र थे। वो फोन पर बोलते थे ‘अरे बाबा, ये खबर दमदार होनी चाहिए पर पीटीसी भेजना मत भूलना’। मगर कोई दूसरा आदमी मुझसे बात करने से पहले दो बार सोचता जरूर था।
इस घटना को कई साल हो गये मगर कमोवेश तकरीबन हर चैनल के न्यूज रूम की सोच और अख्सरियत अब भी वैसी है बल्कि कई जगहों पर तो रिपोर्टरों की हालत और भी पतली है और हर रोज गालियां प्रात: स्मरणीय मंत्र की तरह मिलती हैं और उसी की घुटन कश्मकश में पूरा दिन कब बीत जाता है ये उन्हें भी मालूम नहीं पड़ता। जैसे वो कह रहे हो कि मजबूरी मुलाज़मत का नाम है...
सुबह होती है, शाम होती है।
उम्र यूं ही तमाम होती है...
उस पर से तुर्रा ये कि ‘भैंस को बचाना है आंदोलन’ का चीखता हुआ बैंड और एंकर का ये फरमान कि ‘मैं अपने कैमरामैन से दर्खास्त करूंगी कि वो भैंस की जद्दो-जहद हमारे दर्शकों को दिखाए’
फिर जिज्ञासा एक और बिच्छू डंक एंकर का सवाल कि भैंस को बचाने की जिम्मेदारी किस विभाग की है। ‘पर तो दिमाग भन्नाया ‘ मगर उसके भी दिमागी दिवालियापन पर छक्का मारा रिपोर्टर महाशय ने ये कहते हुए कि हम आपको बता दें कि सरकार पूरी तरह से जिम्मेदार है.... वगैरह वगैरह... और बाकी खबरें सूखने के बाद......।
अरे भाई ये क्या है? ‘क्या ये वाकई चैनल की भैस या चैनलवालों की अक्ल की’ क्या भैंस डूबी या फिर रिपोर्टर और एंकर सहित न्यूज रूम के ठेकेदारों की आबरू भी? न्यूज चैनल खबरों का जखीरा हैं या फिर मसखरेपन का अड्डा बन गया है? खबरों की दुनिया क्या इतनी मुफलिस हो गई है? खबर्ची इतने जाहिल और ग़ाफिल हो गए हैं? या फिर सहाफत ही यतीम हो गया है? या फिर बदअखलाकी आसमान छू गई है?
एक नक्कारा और माजूर सहाफी ने अपनी चमड़ी बचाने के लिये पूरे चैनल के जमीर के उपर कब्जा कर लिया। और बाकी लोग इस नाकाबिले-बर्दाश्त वेवकूफी की जमकर मजम्मत करने के बदले अपनी अक्ल बेचकर उसी तमाशे में जलसे की तरह शरीक हो गए?
मगर खबरिया चैनलों की नई सच्चाई ये भी है। संगीन या जदीद खबरों से रगब़त अब कम दिखाई देने लगी है। 123 करोड़ की आबादी वाले इस मुल्क में खबरों की भरमार है मगर हम आज भी यही दलील देते हैं कि हम वही दिखाते हैं जो जनता चाहती हैं इल्म की कमी का नज़ारा तो तभी से दिखना शुरू हो गया था जब एक टीवी रिपोर्टर ने तत्कालीन गृह मंत्री स्वर्गीय इंद्रजीत गुप्ता से साक्षात्कार खत्म करने के बाद उनका नाम और विभाग पूछ लिया और मंत्रीजी सर पकड़कर बैठ गए थे।
जब जामियानगर में आतंकवादियों से मुठभेड़ के बाद पुलिस कमिश्नर एक संवाददाता सम्मेलन को संबोधित कर रहे थे तो एक रिपोर्टर ने सवाल दागा कि आतंकवादियों को एके 47 राइफल का लाइसेंस किसने दिया था?
अब ऐसे में खबरिया चैलनों की फौज अपनी बेवकूफी और बेतुकेपन से आम जनता के उपहास का पात्र न बने तो और क्या बने? खबरिया चैनल मज़ाक का मुअम्मा बनने लगे हैं तो इसमे हैरत की क्या बात है? जब ऐसी महारत वाले रिपोर्टरों को अपराध से संबंधित संगीन खबरों पर रिपोर्ट करने के लिए भेजा जाता है तो उस रिपोर्टर से ज्यादा तौहीन उस चैनल की होती है जिसके लिए वो काम करता है। ये ही वजह है कि कुछ लोगों की निगाह में रिपोर्टर बनना सबसे आसान काम बन गया है। इसके लिए किसी विशेष योग्यता की आवश्कता नहीं है बस थोड़ी सी शक्ल ठीक हो, एक दो नेताओं का वरदहस्त प्राप्त हो लंबे समय तक कैमरे के सामने जोरदार तरीके से अखंण्ड बकवास करने की क्षमता और माइक का इस्तेमाल ‘शमशीर’ की तरह करना आता हो तो आपकी नौकरी पक्की।
कहा जाता है कि टेलीविजन न्यूज सेंकेंड्स का खेल है जो बड़ी से बड़ी खबर को 90 सेंकेंड में खत्म कर दे वही बाज़ीगर है मगर ये बात लंबीचौड़ी फीस देकर कुछ खबरिया चैलनों द्वारा चलाए गए पत्रकारिता संस्थान की खान से निकले ‘कोहनूर ‘ नहीं समझ पाते हैं। उनका सबसे बड़ा मकसद ये होता है कि किसी तरह चैनल पर शक्ल दिखाई दे जाए उसके बाद तो पूरा बाजार मुट्ठी में है। पत्रकारिता की इस पौध को खबर के आगे या पीछे की ज्यादा जानकारी इसलिए नहीं हो पाती और सबसे बड़ी त्रासदी तब होती है जब किसी एंकर को रिपोर्टिंग करने भेज दिया जाता है जिसने कभी डेस्क पर काम नहीं किया खबर की चौहद्दी की बारीकी नहीं सीखी, जिसे माया, ममता और जयललिता के बीच फर्क नहीं मालूम ऐसे में लाइव रिपोर्टिंग में अगर वो सीबीआई और सीआईडी के बीच फर्क नहीं कर पातीं तो उनका क्या कसूर?
उससे से भी हैरतअंगेज है एसाइनमेंट डेस्क जो अब तक चैनल का दिल और धमनी माना जाता था मगर आज उसका गुर्दा बन गया है। ऐसे कई ‘न्यूजरूम’ जाकर देखिए तो वहां बैठे कई लोगों को देश का इतिहास-भूगोल का पता नहीं होता। उनके लिए कानपुर-नागपुर या मैसूर-बैंगलौर, दिल्ली के सरोजनीनगर-नौरोजीनगर जैसे लगते हैं। और जब उनके मुंह से हर दिन हैरतअंगेज फरमान जारी होता है तो हैरानी होती है।
मैं इसका कई बार भुक्तभोगी रहा हूं। एक वाकया याद आता है आजतक के दिनों का मैं किसी खबर खोजी के सिलसिले में मैसूर गया था कि एसाइनमेंट से फोन आया, आप मैसूर से फौरन निकले, सीधे कोयंबटूर जाएं। वहां दंगा हो गया है वो खबर शूट कर आप फौरन बैंगलौर वापस आकर अपलिंक करें। इसके पहले कि मैं कुछ कह सकता कि वो चिल्लाए ‘सुन रहे हैं कि नहीं आपको ये करना हैं और आगे में कुछ नहीं सुनना चाहता’
पता नहीं क्या हुआ जैसे तन बदन में आग लग गई फिर मैंने फोन उठाया और उन साहब को समझाया की उनके पास हिंदुस्तान का नक्शा सामने हो तो वो देख लें कि 5 घंटे में क्या उनके हुक्म की तामील होने की गुंजाइश है या नहीं।
मगर उनके मुंह से निकला एक और लफ्ज़ ने मेरे सब्र का बांध तोड़ दिया। और मैंने उनके साथ वो सलूक किया जो शायद वो आज भी याद रखते हैं और सामने दिख भी गए तो उनकी रूह फना होने लगती है। मैंने उनसे सिर्फ यही अर्ज किया था की मैसूर से कोयंबटूर की दूरी सिर्फ 478 किलोमीटर है और वहां से बैंगलौर 594 किलोमीटर है। मैं ना तो अंजनी पुत्र हूं की उड़ कर पहुंच जाऊं और पलक झपकते ही सारा कार्य संपन्न कर 5 घंटे में बैंगलौर आ जाऊं। बैंगलौर दूरदर्शन मेरे ससुर का तो है नहीं कि अपना ट्रासमीशन ब्रेक कर वो मुझे अपलिंक करने देगा।
मेरा आखिरी वाक्य यही था ‘अगर ये ही जाहिलों जैसी दोबारा हरकत की तो फोन से बाहर निकलकर मुंह पर थप्पड़ मारूंगा ‘।
मगर दिल्ली ऑफिस में तो बवाल हो गया। वो मोहतरम एसपी सिंह के सामने ऐसे रोए जैसे उनका शील भंग हो गया। बाद में एसपी सिंह को पूरी बात समझ में आई। वो फोन पर हंसते हुए बोले ‘बच्चों से मुंह न लगा करो। नालायक हैं ये लोग। पता नहीं कब सीखेंगे। खैर, कल ये खबर अपलिंक कर देना ‘।
मैंने जान पर खेल कर वो खबर तो कर दी मगर बदनाम भी हो गया। मेरा नाम डॉबरमैन रख दिया गया जो एक ही आदमी की कमांड सुनता था। जब भी बड़ी खबर होती थी या तो खुद एसपी सिंह बोले देते थे या मेरे हम नाम दोस्त स्वर्गीय अजय चौधरी जो मेरे बड़े अच्छे मित्र थे। वो फोन पर बोलते थे ‘अरे बाबा, ये खबर दमदार होनी चाहिए पर पीटीसी भेजना मत भूलना’। मगर कोई दूसरा आदमी मुझसे बात करने से पहले दो बार सोचता जरूर था।
इस घटना को कई साल हो गये मगर कमोवेश तकरीबन हर चैनल के न्यूज रूम की सोच और अख्सरियत अब भी वैसी है बल्कि कई जगहों पर तो रिपोर्टरों की हालत और भी पतली है और हर रोज गालियां प्रात: स्मरणीय मंत्र की तरह मिलती हैं और उसी की घुटन कश्मकश में पूरा दिन कब बीत जाता है ये उन्हें भी मालूम नहीं पड़ता। जैसे वो कह रहे हो कि मजबूरी मुलाज़मत का नाम है...
सुबह होती है, शाम होती है।
उम्र यूं ही तमाम होती है...
रविवार, 21 फ़रवरी 2010
रिएलिटी शो का रेला
रियलिटी शो का रेला
आजकल हमारे देश की जनता एक ऐसे ‘उद-बिलाव’ के हैरतअंगेज नखरे और नज़ारे का मज़ा ले रही है जिसका नाम है रियलिटी शो। आप कोई भी टीवी चैनल खोल ले, ऐसे यर्थाथवादी शो आपको हर होटल में परोसे गए बुफे लंच या डिनर की तरह हर दिन और रात मिलेंगे। मांस का लोथड़ा वही रहता है कोई उसका शोरबा या फिर गोश्तबा या कोई कीमा बनाता है। इसी तरह रियलिटी शो का मूलमंत्र वही रहता है जनता दर्शकों की भावनाओं में रोने हंसाने का छोंक डालकर करोड़ों की सब्जी पकाना इसी रियलिटी शो की मेहरबानी से कोई रातों रात सुपरस्टार बन जाता है तो किसी की मेहनत की आस्तीन तार-तार हो जाती है। इसी शो की वजह से इतिहास के पन्ने की तरह भुला दिए गए। पुराने कलाकारों के वारे-न्यारे हो जाते हैं तो कभी अच्छे नए प्रतिभाशाली अदाकार या फनकार एसएमएस या ऑनलॉइन वोटिंग की विभीषिका में झुलस कर किनारे हो जाते हैं। कभी कोई अपनी अलादीनी प्रसिद्धि पर हंसता है तो कोई निर्थाथ के आत्मीयतापन का रोना रोता है। मगर क्या ये सच नहीं कि रियलिटी शो के नाम पर यही तो सबकुछ होता है।
दरअसल रियलिटी शो की कहानी नई नहीं है, इसकी शुरुआत तो 1940 के दशक में ही हो गई थी। एलेन फंट जैसे प्रस्तुतकर्ताओं ने अपने केडिंड कैमरा कार्यक्रम के ज़रिए समाज के प्रबुद्ध तथा शक्तिशाली लोगों की निजी ज़िंदगी के नखरे और नज़ाकत से लेकर उनकी हर अदा और आदतों की खिड़की खोल दी थी। ऐसे कार्यक्रमों की लोकप्रियता इसलिए ज़्यादा बढ़ गई क्योंकि आम दर्शकों को वो चटकारा भरी चीज़े, वो नायाब बातें और कहानियां देखने और सुनने को नहीं मिलती थी। पूरी दुनिया में इसी तरह के कार्यक्रमों का क्रेज़ है। लोग हर नामचीन हस्ती की ज़िंदगी के उन अनछुए पहलुओं को ऐसे शो के ज़रिए देखना चाहते है जो उन्हें आमतौर पर देखने को नहीं मिलता। इसी शो के ज़रिए नई प्रतिभाओं का चयन होता है। भारतीय टेलिविज़न उद्योग में ये रियलिटी शो एक नया चलन हो गया है। कुछ लोगों ने कहा कि चलो इसी के बहाने कम से कम एकता कपूर की सुबक सुबकवादी कहानियों की अंतहीन पटकथाओं और उलूलजुलूल कारनामों से छूट तो मिली। दरअसल “क” शब्द का कहर इतना भारी पड़ने लगा था कि हर मध्यमवर्गीय परिवार के ड्राइंगरुम में आंसुओं की धार थमने का नाम नहीं ले रही थी। हमारे देश में हर खेल का एक मौसम, मिजाज और महत्व होता है। मगर भारत की जनता की सहनशीलता की पराकाष्ठा का आकलन करना काफी मुश्किल होता है और यही वजह है कि इतने पकाऊ और उबाऊ धारावाहिकों के शो भी कई बरसों तक अपना जलवा बिखरेते रहते है।
भारत में सबसे पहले चैनल वी ने नई प्रतिभाओं का शिकार करने (टैलेंट हंट) का बीड़ा उठाया और वहां से जो कौन बनेगा करोड़पति ने लोकप्रियता का झंडा गाड़ा उसके बाद तो ऐसे शो की बाढ़ सी आ गई। मगर हैरानी वाली बात ये थी कि तकरीबन 90 फीसदी ऐसे रियलिटी शो दरअसल चुराए हुए थे या सीधे नकल का नगीना थे। उसके बाद आया साइरस बरुचा का एमटीवी बकरा जिसका अपना अलग ही माहौल और अंदाज़ था। उसकी हैरतअंगेज अदाएं और बकरा बनाने की तरकीब काफी लोगों को पसंद आई। उसका हिन्दी विकल्प बना सारेगामापा जैसे भारतीय संगीत की मिठास की चाशनी में डूबी और नए नए गायकों की फौज ने जनता का मन मोहा। अब इसी क्रम में आगे चला आया राहुल दुल्हनियां ले जाएगा और वो भी हमारे दर्शक झेल रहे हैं। अब उसे कौन समझाए कि ससुरा अपनी ज़िंदगी में एक दुल्हनिया को संभालने की बजाय उसे दुलत्ती मारकर भगा दिया और फिर वही काम शाही अंदाज़ में करने चला आया। अब तो इस देश की जनता ही बताए कि भैया ये कैसी रियलिटी है। अगर ऐसा होता तो हर गली नुक्कड़ पर ऐसी दुल्हनों की फौज खड़ी नहीं मिलती। और हरियाणा तथा पंजाब जैसी जगहों में मर्द-औरत का अनुपात तो काफी कम हो गया होता। अगर ऐसा होता तो देश के सबसे खूबसूरत कुंआरा नौजवान राहुल गांधी के सामने जनता कई इंद्र की परियों से लेकर गांव या गिरिजनों वाले इलाकों की सबसे कमसिन और कटीली दुल्हैया लाकर न खड़ा कर देते और राहुल भैया शादी भी कर लेते। पर उनको भी पता है कि रियलिटी शो की लौ में जलती, उछलती और हर तरह की हरकत करती अप्सराओं का जलवा असल ज़िंदगी में कितना ज़ोखिम भरा और जी का जंजाल हो सकता है। अगर वास्तविकता ही दिखानी है तो वही सही तरीका अपनाया जाए लेकिन जब काल्पनिकता की शराब वास्तविकता के सोडे में मिलाकर पेश की जाती है तो कई लोग इसकी असल सूरत और पहचान को समझने में धोखा खा जाते हैं। हर चैनल में आए “ये सच है” कि सीरियलों की बाढ़ और इस तरह के रियलिटी शो से कई नई प्रतिभाओं को समाज के सामने आने का मौका भी मिला है। संगीत से जुड़ी नई प्रतिभाओं की खोज काफी हद तक कामयाब भी रही है। यहां तक कि सच का सामना जैसा कार्यक्रम भी अपनी जगह अनोखा है। इन शो के ज़रिए जनता भरपूर मज़ा लेती है। अपने चहेते अदाकारों और फनकारों को उठाने या गिराने में ऑनलाइन या प्रत्यक्ष वोटिंग के अस्त्र का इस्तेमाल भी करती है। मगर ऐसा भी देखा गया है कि कभी-कभी गलत विजेताओं को चुनने के लिए भी ये हथकंडा अपनाया जाता है और सामने बैठी जनता मन मसोस कर रह जाती है। कभी-कभार भयावह स्थिति तब पैदा हो जाती है जब प्रतियोगिता से हटाए जाने के समय प्रतियोगी अपनी प्रतिक्रिया अप्रत्याशित ढंग से व्यक्त कर देते हैं।
कुछ समय से इन शो की खुली तौर पर आलोचना इस आधार पर होने लगी है इसके प्रणेता या प्रस्तुतकर्ता ऐसे औचक और भौचक रियलिटी शो के नाम पर जनता की भावनाओं से खिलवाड़ कर बैठते हैं। मगर अपनी तिज़ोरी नोटो से भर लेते हैं। ये भी कहा जाता है कि इन शो में भाग लेने वाले प्रतियोगियों को अपनी प्रतिभा का सही तरीके से इस्तेमाल का मौका दिए जाने के बदले उनसे एक ख़ास किस्म के करार के कानून में बांध दिया जाता है और इसी प्रक्रिया में कभी-कभार गुड़ गोबर भी हो जाता है। इससे भी बड़ा सवाल इस बात पर उठाया जाता है कि किसी ख़ास प्रतियोगी को प्रतियोगिता से बाहर करने की प्रक्रिया या मापदंड अपनाए जाते हैं वो कितने सही या गलत है। एक और बीमारी जो अक्सर देखने को मिलती है कि ऐसे शो में बुलाए गए कई विशेषज्ञ या जज ऐसे लोग होते हैं जिनकी अपनी विश्वसनीयता भी शक के दायरे में होती है और उस पर उनके मुखारविंद से फूटते कमेंट्स इतने फूहड़ और सतही होते हैं कि उठकर सीधे उनके गाल पर झन्नाटेदार तमाचा रसीद करने का मन करता है। प्रतियोगियों को शालीनता के दायरे में रहकर उनको कभी समझाने के बदले उनके व्याकरण इतने तीखे और तेज़ होते है कि कइयों को रोना आने लगता है और कई हतोत्साहित भी हो जाते हैं। बहुत कम जज या विशेषज्ञ ऐसे दिखे जो अपनी वाणी या विचार में शालीनता और मर्यादा रखते हैं। दरअसल भारतीय समाज काफी भावुक होकर इन शो को देखता और अक्सर उनमें डूब जाता है। रियलिटी शो के रचनाकार उनकी इसी कमज़ोरी को अच्छी तरह जानते हैं और किसी दूसरे देश से चुराए गए शो को हिन्दी का लिबास बनाकर धड़ल्ले से रातों रात करोड़ों का कारोबार कर डालते हैं। मिसाल के तौर पर कौन बनेगा करोड़पति या इंडियन आइडल ब्रिटिश रियलिटी शो से सीधे टीप लिए गए थे। फिर भी लोकप्रियता के आसमान पर काफी समय तक टिके रहे। संगीत से संबंधित ऐसे कार्यक्रमों में श्रेया घोषाल से लेकर कुणाल गांजेवाला, सुनिधि चौहान, अनुष्का से लेकर अभिजीत सावंत जैसो की ज़िंदगी रातों-रात बदल डाली और उन्हें दर्शकों का चहेता बना दिया । एक तरफ राजू श्रीवास्तव, सुनीलपाल से लेकर एहसान कुरैशी तक की लोकप्रियता चंद दिनों में आसमान छू गई तो दूसरी तरफ राखी सावंत से लेकर राहुल राय, अनुपमा वर्मा, इस्माइल दरबार और बाबा सहगल जैसे लोगों के सितारे गर्दिश से वापस आ गए। लेकिन इसका एक पहलू ये भी है कि टीआरपी तथा एसएमएस के खेल के बावजूद कुछ नामी-गिरामी अभिनेत्रियों द्वारा संचालित रियलटी शो पर पानी फिर गया। मिसाल के तौर पर सोनी टीवी पर माधुरी दीक्षित का कही न कहीं कोई है, नीना गुप्ता की कमज़ोर कड़ी कौन(स्टार प्लस) तथा ज़ी टीवी पर जीतो छ्प्पर फाड़ के टूटे तिनके की तरह हर तरफ बिखर गया।
ऐसे शो का सबसे ज़्यादा चर्चित और चमत्कृत पहलू रहा वोटिंग पद्धति जिसके ज़रिए राख को ख़ाक और रंक को राजा बनाने का सिलसला शुरु हुआ। यहां तक कि ऐसे चमत्कारी शीशे से प्रख्यात गायिका लतामंगेशकर भी कुपित होकर बोल पड़ी कि ऐसे शो की चयन प्रक्रिया एक तमाशे के सिवा कुछ नहीं है. उनका कहना काफी हद तक सही भी है क्यों किसी कलाकार की गायन प्रतिभा कम मगर उसके राज्यों के लोगों द्वारा भेजा गया लाखों एसएमएस उसके विजेता होने का तमगा होता है। तो क्या ये मान लिया जाए कि इन संगीत प्रतियोगिताओं में एसएमएस वोटिंग करने वाले सारे तानसेन की औलाद है जिनको ये बखूबी मालूम है कि खरज, पंचम और सप्तक में क्या फर्क है और आरोह-अवरोह क्या बला है तो फिर सबके सब ये भी जानते होंगे कि राग मालकोस मीयां की मल्हार से कितना अलग है। राग विहाग कब प्राती बन जाता है। राग झिंझोटी कब झिंगुर की झांय झांय हो जाती है। कैसे एक दो सुर के भटकाव से गाना रेकने में तब्दील हो जाता है। जब देश की पूरी जनता ही पूरी संगीत विशारद है तो फिर अधपके जजों का क्या काम। अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति के चुनाव की तरह सीधे प्रतियोगियों की प्रतिभा का आकलन होना चाहिए। मगर इस आकलन के बदले में ये जानने को भी मिले कि किस प्रतिद्वंदी को कहां धकेला और किस चैनल ने दूसरे को कहा रेला। अन्य किस्म के रियलिटी शो में बिग बॉस सीरीज़ ने अपना झंडा तो गाड़ ही लिया है लेकिन इससे पहले नच बलिए और लिटिल चैंप ने भी कमाल कर दिखाया। इसके काफी पूर्व क्लोज़अप अंताक्षरी ने धूम मचाई थी। मगर सबसे ज़्यादा कोफ्त तब होती है जब न्यूज़ में रियलिटी शो घुसेड़ा जाता है और वो भी नाट्य रुपांतरण के तौर पर या फिर उसका अति नाटकीयकरण परोसकर। कभी गुड़िया की पंचायत दिखती है तो कभी किसी बुढ़िया की हिमाकत। मगर क्या ये रियेलिटी शो ज़िंदगी की वास्तविकता से कितनी दूर है इस पर शायद बहुत कम लोगों ने संजीदगी से सोचा होगा। विदेशों से आयातित रियलिटी शो का आगमन तो हो गया मगर उसका अभी तक पूर्ण रुपेण भारतीयकरण नहीं हो पाया है। ये कौन यर्थाथ है जिसमें लाखों की लागत से सेट बनते हैं। लाखों-करोड़ों की लागत से बने खूबसूरत पुरुष और महिलाएं कनफोड़वा संगीत और चकाचौंध की रोशनी में शास्त्रीय राग अलापते हैं या फिर अभिनय प्रतिभा की परीक्षा देते हैं और उस पर तुर्रा ये कि दिनरात कार्यक्रम का प्रचार और एसएमएस वोटिंग की अपील करते हैं। यदि रियलिटी शो दिखाना ही है तो गांव में जाओ, गोबर के ढेर के बगल में या पीली सरसों के बीच में सेट लगाओं और गांवों की बिखरी सच्चाई के बीच से कोई नया हीरा ढूंढकर लाओ। रियलिटी शो में ये भी दिखाओं की देश का असली चेहरा क्या है। यर्थाथ ये भी है कि छत्तीसगढ़ और आंध्र प्रदेश में रहते लोग एक तरफ सरकारी दमनतंत्र और दूसरी और नक्सली आतंक के साए में जीने को मज़बूर है।
महाराष्ट्र के विदर्भ में आत्महत्या करते किसानों के रिश्तेदार किस ह्रदयविदारक विपन्नता में जी रहे हैं ये सब चीज़े रियलिटी शो में क्यों नहीं दिखाई जाती। क्या ये कड़वा सच नहीं है कि हमारे देश में आज भी दो करोड़ से ज़्यादा बच्चों के पढ़ने के लिए स्कूल नहीं है। अब भी तीस करोड़ से ज़्यादा लोगों को भुखमरी, निरक्षरता से निजात नहीं मिली है। क्या ये यर्थाथ नहीं कि अभी भी देश में पच्चीस करोड़ लोगों की पहुंच अस्पताल तक नहीं है और दवा दारू की सुविधा नही मिल पा रही । देश में अब तक 12 करोड़ से ज़्यादा महिलाएं और बच्चे खुली जगह पर शोच करने के लिए मजबूर है। पांच से दस वर्ष की उम्र वाले 51 फीसदी बच्चों को संतुलित आहार नसीब नहीं होता। कम से कम 14 राज्यों में 52 फीसदी प्राइमरी स्कूल में पढ़ रहे बच्चों को प्रति क्लास एक मास्टर भी नहीं मिलता। क्या ये सच्चाई नहीं कि देश में रहने वाले तीन करोड़ लोगों के सिर पर छत तक नहीं है। फिर रियलिटी शो में इन हक़ीक़त को जगह क्यों नहीं दी जाती। दुनिया में सबसे बड़ा लोकतंत्र का दावा करने वाले देश के लिए इससे बड़ी रियलिटी और क्या हो सकती है। फिर इस पर शो क्यों नहीं।
ये शायद इसी देश में हो सकता है कि राष्ट्रपिता महात्मा गांधी के साथ गांधीगीरी शब्द को हास्यास्पद बनाकर जोड़ा जाता है और उसी राष्ट्रपिता को यू-ट्यूब के ज़रिए भौड़े तथा फूहड़ अंदाज़ में तीन टीवी चैनलों पर दिखाया जाता है। किसी और देश में अपने राष्ट्रपिता के साथ ऐसा सुलूक राजद्रोह से कम नहीं माना जाएगा। ये तो ऐसा लगा कि जैसे किसी नालायक औलाद ने अपने ही बाप को अश्लीलता के कठघरे में लाकर खड़ा कर दिया हो। क्या कोई अमेरिकी नौजवान लिंकन या वाशिंगटन के साथ ऐसा सुलूक होते देखकर ताली बजाएगा। क्या पाकिस्तानी लोग मोहम्मद जिन्ना को तवायफखाने में जाते देखकर कसीदा पढ़ेंगे। मगर हम हिंदुस्तानियों का क्या, हम लोगों का दिल बहुत बड़ा है जो अक्सर दिमाग़ बंद कर भावनाओं के समुद्र में बह जाता है। यहां किसी को भी रियलिटी यानि यर्थाथ की बात याद नहीं रहती। कुलमिलाकर भारत की जनता ऐसी गाय है जिसे चारा खिलाने की जगह लात भी मारो तब भी दूध देना बंद नहीं करती और ये गुरुमंत्र रियलिटी शो के रचने वाले अच्छी तरह जानते हैं। तभी तो कहते हैं कि सौ में से नब्बे बेइमान फिर भी मेरा भारत महान और यही है रियलिटी शो का गुणगान।
आजकल हमारे देश की जनता एक ऐसे ‘उद-बिलाव’ के हैरतअंगेज नखरे और नज़ारे का मज़ा ले रही है जिसका नाम है रियलिटी शो। आप कोई भी टीवी चैनल खोल ले, ऐसे यर्थाथवादी शो आपको हर होटल में परोसे गए बुफे लंच या डिनर की तरह हर दिन और रात मिलेंगे। मांस का लोथड़ा वही रहता है कोई उसका शोरबा या फिर गोश्तबा या कोई कीमा बनाता है। इसी तरह रियलिटी शो का मूलमंत्र वही रहता है जनता दर्शकों की भावनाओं में रोने हंसाने का छोंक डालकर करोड़ों की सब्जी पकाना इसी रियलिटी शो की मेहरबानी से कोई रातों रात सुपरस्टार बन जाता है तो किसी की मेहनत की आस्तीन तार-तार हो जाती है। इसी शो की वजह से इतिहास के पन्ने की तरह भुला दिए गए। पुराने कलाकारों के वारे-न्यारे हो जाते हैं तो कभी अच्छे नए प्रतिभाशाली अदाकार या फनकार एसएमएस या ऑनलॉइन वोटिंग की विभीषिका में झुलस कर किनारे हो जाते हैं। कभी कोई अपनी अलादीनी प्रसिद्धि पर हंसता है तो कोई निर्थाथ के आत्मीयतापन का रोना रोता है। मगर क्या ये सच नहीं कि रियलिटी शो के नाम पर यही तो सबकुछ होता है।
दरअसल रियलिटी शो की कहानी नई नहीं है, इसकी शुरुआत तो 1940 के दशक में ही हो गई थी। एलेन फंट जैसे प्रस्तुतकर्ताओं ने अपने केडिंड कैमरा कार्यक्रम के ज़रिए समाज के प्रबुद्ध तथा शक्तिशाली लोगों की निजी ज़िंदगी के नखरे और नज़ाकत से लेकर उनकी हर अदा और आदतों की खिड़की खोल दी थी। ऐसे कार्यक्रमों की लोकप्रियता इसलिए ज़्यादा बढ़ गई क्योंकि आम दर्शकों को वो चटकारा भरी चीज़े, वो नायाब बातें और कहानियां देखने और सुनने को नहीं मिलती थी। पूरी दुनिया में इसी तरह के कार्यक्रमों का क्रेज़ है। लोग हर नामचीन हस्ती की ज़िंदगी के उन अनछुए पहलुओं को ऐसे शो के ज़रिए देखना चाहते है जो उन्हें आमतौर पर देखने को नहीं मिलता। इसी शो के ज़रिए नई प्रतिभाओं का चयन होता है। भारतीय टेलिविज़न उद्योग में ये रियलिटी शो एक नया चलन हो गया है। कुछ लोगों ने कहा कि चलो इसी के बहाने कम से कम एकता कपूर की सुबक सुबकवादी कहानियों की अंतहीन पटकथाओं और उलूलजुलूल कारनामों से छूट तो मिली। दरअसल “क” शब्द का कहर इतना भारी पड़ने लगा था कि हर मध्यमवर्गीय परिवार के ड्राइंगरुम में आंसुओं की धार थमने का नाम नहीं ले रही थी। हमारे देश में हर खेल का एक मौसम, मिजाज और महत्व होता है। मगर भारत की जनता की सहनशीलता की पराकाष्ठा का आकलन करना काफी मुश्किल होता है और यही वजह है कि इतने पकाऊ और उबाऊ धारावाहिकों के शो भी कई बरसों तक अपना जलवा बिखरेते रहते है।
भारत में सबसे पहले चैनल वी ने नई प्रतिभाओं का शिकार करने (टैलेंट हंट) का बीड़ा उठाया और वहां से जो कौन बनेगा करोड़पति ने लोकप्रियता का झंडा गाड़ा उसके बाद तो ऐसे शो की बाढ़ सी आ गई। मगर हैरानी वाली बात ये थी कि तकरीबन 90 फीसदी ऐसे रियलिटी शो दरअसल चुराए हुए थे या सीधे नकल का नगीना थे। उसके बाद आया साइरस बरुचा का एमटीवी बकरा जिसका अपना अलग ही माहौल और अंदाज़ था। उसकी हैरतअंगेज अदाएं और बकरा बनाने की तरकीब काफी लोगों को पसंद आई। उसका हिन्दी विकल्प बना सारेगामापा जैसे भारतीय संगीत की मिठास की चाशनी में डूबी और नए नए गायकों की फौज ने जनता का मन मोहा। अब इसी क्रम में आगे चला आया राहुल दुल्हनियां ले जाएगा और वो भी हमारे दर्शक झेल रहे हैं। अब उसे कौन समझाए कि ससुरा अपनी ज़िंदगी में एक दुल्हनिया को संभालने की बजाय उसे दुलत्ती मारकर भगा दिया और फिर वही काम शाही अंदाज़ में करने चला आया। अब तो इस देश की जनता ही बताए कि भैया ये कैसी रियलिटी है। अगर ऐसा होता तो हर गली नुक्कड़ पर ऐसी दुल्हनों की फौज खड़ी नहीं मिलती। और हरियाणा तथा पंजाब जैसी जगहों में मर्द-औरत का अनुपात तो काफी कम हो गया होता। अगर ऐसा होता तो देश के सबसे खूबसूरत कुंआरा नौजवान राहुल गांधी के सामने जनता कई इंद्र की परियों से लेकर गांव या गिरिजनों वाले इलाकों की सबसे कमसिन और कटीली दुल्हैया लाकर न खड़ा कर देते और राहुल भैया शादी भी कर लेते। पर उनको भी पता है कि रियलिटी शो की लौ में जलती, उछलती और हर तरह की हरकत करती अप्सराओं का जलवा असल ज़िंदगी में कितना ज़ोखिम भरा और जी का जंजाल हो सकता है। अगर वास्तविकता ही दिखानी है तो वही सही तरीका अपनाया जाए लेकिन जब काल्पनिकता की शराब वास्तविकता के सोडे में मिलाकर पेश की जाती है तो कई लोग इसकी असल सूरत और पहचान को समझने में धोखा खा जाते हैं। हर चैनल में आए “ये सच है” कि सीरियलों की बाढ़ और इस तरह के रियलिटी शो से कई नई प्रतिभाओं को समाज के सामने आने का मौका भी मिला है। संगीत से जुड़ी नई प्रतिभाओं की खोज काफी हद तक कामयाब भी रही है। यहां तक कि सच का सामना जैसा कार्यक्रम भी अपनी जगह अनोखा है। इन शो के ज़रिए जनता भरपूर मज़ा लेती है। अपने चहेते अदाकारों और फनकारों को उठाने या गिराने में ऑनलाइन या प्रत्यक्ष वोटिंग के अस्त्र का इस्तेमाल भी करती है। मगर ऐसा भी देखा गया है कि कभी-कभी गलत विजेताओं को चुनने के लिए भी ये हथकंडा अपनाया जाता है और सामने बैठी जनता मन मसोस कर रह जाती है। कभी-कभार भयावह स्थिति तब पैदा हो जाती है जब प्रतियोगिता से हटाए जाने के समय प्रतियोगी अपनी प्रतिक्रिया अप्रत्याशित ढंग से व्यक्त कर देते हैं।
कुछ समय से इन शो की खुली तौर पर आलोचना इस आधार पर होने लगी है इसके प्रणेता या प्रस्तुतकर्ता ऐसे औचक और भौचक रियलिटी शो के नाम पर जनता की भावनाओं से खिलवाड़ कर बैठते हैं। मगर अपनी तिज़ोरी नोटो से भर लेते हैं। ये भी कहा जाता है कि इन शो में भाग लेने वाले प्रतियोगियों को अपनी प्रतिभा का सही तरीके से इस्तेमाल का मौका दिए जाने के बदले उनसे एक ख़ास किस्म के करार के कानून में बांध दिया जाता है और इसी प्रक्रिया में कभी-कभार गुड़ गोबर भी हो जाता है। इससे भी बड़ा सवाल इस बात पर उठाया जाता है कि किसी ख़ास प्रतियोगी को प्रतियोगिता से बाहर करने की प्रक्रिया या मापदंड अपनाए जाते हैं वो कितने सही या गलत है। एक और बीमारी जो अक्सर देखने को मिलती है कि ऐसे शो में बुलाए गए कई विशेषज्ञ या जज ऐसे लोग होते हैं जिनकी अपनी विश्वसनीयता भी शक के दायरे में होती है और उस पर उनके मुखारविंद से फूटते कमेंट्स इतने फूहड़ और सतही होते हैं कि उठकर सीधे उनके गाल पर झन्नाटेदार तमाचा रसीद करने का मन करता है। प्रतियोगियों को शालीनता के दायरे में रहकर उनको कभी समझाने के बदले उनके व्याकरण इतने तीखे और तेज़ होते है कि कइयों को रोना आने लगता है और कई हतोत्साहित भी हो जाते हैं। बहुत कम जज या विशेषज्ञ ऐसे दिखे जो अपनी वाणी या विचार में शालीनता और मर्यादा रखते हैं। दरअसल भारतीय समाज काफी भावुक होकर इन शो को देखता और अक्सर उनमें डूब जाता है। रियलिटी शो के रचनाकार उनकी इसी कमज़ोरी को अच्छी तरह जानते हैं और किसी दूसरे देश से चुराए गए शो को हिन्दी का लिबास बनाकर धड़ल्ले से रातों रात करोड़ों का कारोबार कर डालते हैं। मिसाल के तौर पर कौन बनेगा करोड़पति या इंडियन आइडल ब्रिटिश रियलिटी शो से सीधे टीप लिए गए थे। फिर भी लोकप्रियता के आसमान पर काफी समय तक टिके रहे। संगीत से संबंधित ऐसे कार्यक्रमों में श्रेया घोषाल से लेकर कुणाल गांजेवाला, सुनिधि चौहान, अनुष्का से लेकर अभिजीत सावंत जैसो की ज़िंदगी रातों-रात बदल डाली और उन्हें दर्शकों का चहेता बना दिया । एक तरफ राजू श्रीवास्तव, सुनीलपाल से लेकर एहसान कुरैशी तक की लोकप्रियता चंद दिनों में आसमान छू गई तो दूसरी तरफ राखी सावंत से लेकर राहुल राय, अनुपमा वर्मा, इस्माइल दरबार और बाबा सहगल जैसे लोगों के सितारे गर्दिश से वापस आ गए। लेकिन इसका एक पहलू ये भी है कि टीआरपी तथा एसएमएस के खेल के बावजूद कुछ नामी-गिरामी अभिनेत्रियों द्वारा संचालित रियलटी शो पर पानी फिर गया। मिसाल के तौर पर सोनी टीवी पर माधुरी दीक्षित का कही न कहीं कोई है, नीना गुप्ता की कमज़ोर कड़ी कौन(स्टार प्लस) तथा ज़ी टीवी पर जीतो छ्प्पर फाड़ के टूटे तिनके की तरह हर तरफ बिखर गया।
ऐसे शो का सबसे ज़्यादा चर्चित और चमत्कृत पहलू रहा वोटिंग पद्धति जिसके ज़रिए राख को ख़ाक और रंक को राजा बनाने का सिलसला शुरु हुआ। यहां तक कि ऐसे चमत्कारी शीशे से प्रख्यात गायिका लतामंगेशकर भी कुपित होकर बोल पड़ी कि ऐसे शो की चयन प्रक्रिया एक तमाशे के सिवा कुछ नहीं है. उनका कहना काफी हद तक सही भी है क्यों किसी कलाकार की गायन प्रतिभा कम मगर उसके राज्यों के लोगों द्वारा भेजा गया लाखों एसएमएस उसके विजेता होने का तमगा होता है। तो क्या ये मान लिया जाए कि इन संगीत प्रतियोगिताओं में एसएमएस वोटिंग करने वाले सारे तानसेन की औलाद है जिनको ये बखूबी मालूम है कि खरज, पंचम और सप्तक में क्या फर्क है और आरोह-अवरोह क्या बला है तो फिर सबके सब ये भी जानते होंगे कि राग मालकोस मीयां की मल्हार से कितना अलग है। राग विहाग कब प्राती बन जाता है। राग झिंझोटी कब झिंगुर की झांय झांय हो जाती है। कैसे एक दो सुर के भटकाव से गाना रेकने में तब्दील हो जाता है। जब देश की पूरी जनता ही पूरी संगीत विशारद है तो फिर अधपके जजों का क्या काम। अमेरिकी राष्ट्रपति के चुनाव की तरह सीधे प्रतियोगियों की प्रतिभा का आकलन होना चाहिए। मगर इस आकलन के बदले में ये जानने को भी मिले कि किस प्रतिद्वंदी को कहां धकेला और किस चैनल ने दूसरे को कहा रेला। अन्य किस्म के रियलिटी शो में बिग बॉस सीरीज़ ने अपना झंडा तो गाड़ ही लिया है लेकिन इससे पहले नच बलिए और लिटिल चैंप ने भी कमाल कर दिखाया। इसके काफी पूर्व क्लोज़अप अंताक्षरी ने धूम मचाई थी। मगर सबसे ज़्यादा कोफ्त तब होती है जब न्यूज़ में रियलिटी शो घुसेड़ा जाता है और वो भी नाट्य रुपांतरण के तौर पर या फिर उसका अति नाटकीयकरण परोसकर। कभी गुड़िया की पंचायत दिखती है तो कभी किसी बुढ़िया की हिमाकत। मगर क्या ये रियेलिटी शो ज़िंदगी की वास्तविकता से कितनी दूर है इस पर शायद बहुत कम लोगों ने संजीदगी से सोचा होगा। विदेशों से आयातित रियलिटी शो का आगमन तो हो गया मगर उसका अभी तक पूर्ण रुपेण भारतीयकरण नहीं हो पाया है। ये कौन यर्थाथ है जिसमें लाखों की लागत से सेट बनते हैं। लाखों-करोड़ों की लागत से बने खूबसूरत पुरुष और महिलाएं कनफोड़वा संगीत और चकाचौंध की रोशनी में शास्त्रीय राग अलापते हैं या फिर अभिनय प्रतिभा की परीक्षा देते हैं और उस पर तुर्रा ये कि दिनरात कार्यक्रम का प्रचार और एसएमएस वोटिंग की अपील करते हैं। यदि रियलिटी शो दिखाना ही है तो गांव में जाओ, गोबर के ढेर के बगल में या पीली सरसों के बीच में सेट लगाओं और गांवों की बिखरी सच्चाई के बीच से कोई नया हीरा ढूंढकर लाओ। रियलिटी शो में ये भी दिखाओं की देश का असली चेहरा क्या है। यर्थाथ ये भी है कि छत्तीसगढ़ और आंध्र प्रदेश में रहते लोग एक तरफ सरकारी दमनतंत्र और दूसरी और नक्सली आतंक के साए में जीने को मज़बूर है।
महाराष्ट्र के विदर्भ में आत्महत्या करते किसानों के रिश्तेदार किस ह्रदयविदारक विपन्नता में जी रहे हैं ये सब चीज़े रियलिटी शो में क्यों नहीं दिखाई जाती। क्या ये कड़वा सच नहीं है कि हमारे देश में आज भी दो करोड़ से ज़्यादा बच्चों के पढ़ने के लिए स्कूल नहीं है। अब भी तीस करोड़ से ज़्यादा लोगों को भुखमरी, निरक्षरता से निजात नहीं मिली है। क्या ये यर्थाथ नहीं कि अभी भी देश में पच्चीस करोड़ लोगों की पहुंच अस्पताल तक नहीं है और दवा दारू की सुविधा नही मिल पा रही । देश में अब तक 12 करोड़ से ज़्यादा महिलाएं और बच्चे खुली जगह पर शोच करने के लिए मजबूर है। पांच से दस वर्ष की उम्र वाले 51 फीसदी बच्चों को संतुलित आहार नसीब नहीं होता। कम से कम 14 राज्यों में 52 फीसदी प्राइमरी स्कूल में पढ़ रहे बच्चों को प्रति क्लास एक मास्टर भी नहीं मिलता। क्या ये सच्चाई नहीं कि देश में रहने वाले तीन करोड़ लोगों के सिर पर छत तक नहीं है। फिर रियलिटी शो में इन हक़ीक़त को जगह क्यों नहीं दी जाती। दुनिया में सबसे बड़ा लोकतंत्र का दावा करने वाले देश के लिए इससे बड़ी रियलिटी और क्या हो सकती है। फिर इस पर शो क्यों नहीं।
ये शायद इसी देश में हो सकता है कि राष्ट्रपिता महात्मा गांधी के साथ गांधीगीरी शब्द को हास्यास्पद बनाकर जोड़ा जाता है और उसी राष्ट्रपिता को यू-ट्यूब के ज़रिए भौड़े तथा फूहड़ अंदाज़ में तीन टीवी चैनलों पर दिखाया जाता है। किसी और देश में अपने राष्ट्रपिता के साथ ऐसा सुलूक राजद्रोह से कम नहीं माना जाएगा। ये तो ऐसा लगा कि जैसे किसी नालायक औलाद ने अपने ही बाप को अश्लीलता के कठघरे में लाकर खड़ा कर दिया हो। क्या कोई अमेरिकी नौजवान लिंकन या वाशिंगटन के साथ ऐसा सुलूक होते देखकर ताली बजाएगा। क्या पाकिस्तानी लोग मोहम्मद जिन्ना को तवायफखाने में जाते देखकर कसीदा पढ़ेंगे। मगर हम हिंदुस्तानियों का क्या, हम लोगों का दिल बहुत बड़ा है जो अक्सर दिमाग़ बंद कर भावनाओं के समुद्र में बह जाता है। यहां किसी को भी रियलिटी यानि यर्थाथ की बात याद नहीं रहती। कुलमिलाकर भारत की जनता ऐसी गाय है जिसे चारा खिलाने की जगह लात भी मारो तब भी दूध देना बंद नहीं करती और ये गुरुमंत्र रियलिटी शो के रचने वाले अच्छी तरह जानते हैं। तभी तो कहते हैं कि सौ में से नब्बे बेइमान फिर भी मेरा भारत महान और यही है रियलिटी शो का गुणगान।
सदस्यता लें
संदेश (Atom)
