Issue 47 Vol II, September 15, 2007

M E D I A

Violence Against Journalists in South Asia
Gobind Thukral

Dangerous and difficult – two words sum up much of the daily reality for journalists and media workers in South Asia. Take any country, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and Nepal, the picture that emerges is that journalism is a calling that is becoming dangerous every passing day. even in countries like Bhutan and Maldives, the journalists have suffered at the hands of both state and non state actors. As many as 20 journalists in South Asia were killed in the line of duty from May 2005 - April 2006. Four in Afghanistan, two in Bangladesh, five in India, one in Nepal, four in Pakistan and four in Sri Lanka. And if we add from the current year, the figure could rise to 30. In addition approximately 50 journalists based in Balakot, Muzzafarabad, Karachi and Islamabad have been identified as killed, missing or injured.

Worldwide the number is much higher. In countries like war ravaged Iraq, insurgency infested Philippines or Sri Lanka and India, the journalism is a thorny profession. Iraq is currently the most dangerous place for journalists to work. Since the war began in March 2003, 129 journalists and media workers have died in the line of duty. Thirty-five others have been abducted.  22 journalists were killed in 2005. Worldwide, 63 journalists were killed last year - the most since the Algerian conflict, when 57 journalists were killed between 1993 and 1996.

 Philippines is the second most deadly place for a reporter to work last year. Seven journalists were killed there for their reporting, and dozens were physically assaulted. They were among more than 1,300 worldwide who were attacked. In Bangladesh and Nepal, beatings and assaults were reported almost daily.

If we look at the origin of media in India, we would be amazed to note that the very journalists who ventured to setup a newspaper way back in 1780. Newspapers were an alien product and it was in Bengal that the newspapers took roots, starting with James Hickey’s Bengal Gazette in 1780.

His creed was “enslaving his body to purchase freedom for my mind and soul.” Hickey exposed the misdeeds of the officers of the East India Company including Governor General Warren Hastings. And consequently he had to fold and go back to London. But he bravely faced the onslaught of the corrupt and wily officers who treated him shabbily. Four hundred policemen were set on him and virtually made to starve at the police station and rendered penniless.

This has been the story of many journalists and newspapers ever since then Journalists continue to face daily attacks, while those who threaten journalists seem to enjoy impunity from prosecution. This culture of impunity reinforces a media environment that can often be profoundly undemocratic and hostile.

In many instances journalists are forced to do their jobs in a climate of fear and intimidation. In the name of tackling terrorism, governments around the region have continued the crack down on democratic rights and press freedom. This is nowhere better illustrated than in the continuing tragedy that is Nepal, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. Corrupt officials, insurgents, fundamentalists of all religions and gangsters with their own violent methods of silencing truth tellers, continue to strike out at journalists.

Journalists in Nepal have been at the forefront of the opposition to the royal coup, and its clampdown on press freedom and democratic rights and they can legitimately claim a share like the Indian press of the pre independence days. Similarly courageous Bangladeshi journalists are exposing the corruption that pervades the country despite continuing horrific violence. Indian journalists in conflict prone-Kashmir and the north east facing the ire of both militants and security forces are doing some bold job. Media persons in Pakistan and Afghanistan are resisting religious fundamentalism in the shape of blasphemy laws. And, in Sri Lanka media workers supporting holistic media reform initiatives in a country ravaged by conflict and more recently, the tsunami. Bu there media has also been part of the problem and the ethnic divide is visible among the journalists too. More Tamilian journalists have been killed compared to their counterpart, the Sinhalese.

Journalism by its very nature is anti establishment and therefore in clash with the authorities. Since it is committed to democratic norms, human rights, civil liberties and a just society, it ought to be standing up to all injustice, communal or ethical divisions and corrupt and authoritarian regimes.   It can not afford to be just watching and waiting as state and society get rotten. It has to hold mirror to the society and seek improvements at all levels. If journalism is a noble calling with a mission, some clash is inherent in its very nature.

In India the media faces two way attacks. At one level the state and non state actors like the insurgents in strife torn areas, the mafia and communal or ethnic leaders throttle it in various ways, the emerging nature of commercial media where the publishers/ owners work mainly for profit dilute its very job of providing objective  verifiable information and learned comment. Many of the mainline newspapers and television channels are increasingly selling their readers or viewers to the advertisers and are throwing all norms to the winds. Concern is missing as is objectivity and balance. How could one explain battery of reporters and photographers at fashion shows and none to report the suicide of farmers or the pitiable condition of workers and tribal people? Or how could media barons explain the communal divide like Gujarat, Punjab and Assam.

Countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal in south Asia are witness to more violence against journalists for the simple reason that not only the state usurped up by armed forces or the feudal lords is intolerant to any criticism or exposure by the journalists, the non state actors, the militants, the jihadis and other fundamentalists including the fundamentalists of the market.

It should be clear to journalists that if they are part of the profiteering commercial media that has lost concern for the society and are increasingly wedded to their ratings to attract more advertisements, they would inevitably lose support of the civil society. It would be easier of the state to come heavy at them. Nothing more guarantees the freedom of the press that a vigilant civil society. Constitutional or legal rights have their value, but they would become deceptive if the society at large does not support the valued role of journalism. If journalists, media workers and friends of media freedom are fighting back, it is because the media is still relevant. One can certainly find stories of amazing courage and professionalism by our colleagues across the region.

However, journalism and its more recent Avtar the new media are undergoing a metamorphosis. Two sting operations, Tehlka’s corruption in defence deals and Aaj Tak’s cash for questions not only exposed the corruption at high levels, but brought to knees the corrupt politicians; our members of parliament. There were other spirited attempts to expose the misdeeds of the mighty and the big in various parts of the country. Yet sting was out when an innocent Delhi teacher was framed in a scandalous manner by a TV channel and when reporters tried to hook members of parliament in a trumpeted up cash scandal for development works.

The consequences of this lack of democracy on the media are self-evident: censorship is enacted, critical journalists are assaulted or legally persecuted, independent media are attacked, often with impunity, and information of public interest is seldom released. There is an urgent need for professional solidarity among journalists in South Asia as well as reforms in the media.

BACK

A Lesson on the Intersection of Press Freedom and National Security
Mariam Jukaku

LAST week, I received my first real-world lesson on the intersection of free press and national security. As a journalism student, I’ve read in my textbooks about the rights of journalists and what the First Amendment guarantees. In my ethics and media law classes, we’ve discussed journalists who are fighting to uphold their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. But Thursday, as I walked out of my introductory photography class, snapping pictures on a public sidewalk, the implications on our everyday lives of the level of fear in our society became painfully apparent.

I was not planning a civil rights experiment. I wasn’t even covering a story. I was just testing some of the functions on my brand new Nikon D40, which I had just purchased for class. I was snapping pictures of a row of flags and signs in front of a VA hospital across the street from my campus. (Ironically, one of the signs read, “The price of freedom can be seen here.”)

As I turned to leave a few minutes later, a VA security officer speed-walked over to me and demanded I hand over my camera. She ordered me to delete several of my photographs and took my student ID. Another officer approached and asked for my driver’s license. They took me into their office and questioned me about my “motives” and “purpose.” More of my pictures were deleted. My ID cards were photocopied.

Until this point, my biggest fear had been that the officer swinging my camera in her hand might drop it.

(We were just lectured that you always wear the neck-strap when handling expensive photography equipment). Then I was told by one of the officers it was illegal to photograph federal property without permission. My immediate thought was “So when I photograph the White House I should ask the President first?” but I bit my tongue. Then I was told it was illegal to photograph veterans (some of whom were in the background when I was taking pictures). Then for added emphasis, I was told I couldn’t even take pictures of the security officer. (Well, there go my plans for the afternoon.)

When you’re a South-Asian Muslim woman wearing long sleeves and a headscarf on a 90-degree day in early September, the thought that security guards are overreacting solely based on your appearance tends to creep around in the back of your mind. You tell yourself you’re just being paranoid. But then you get asked if you’re a U.S. citizen – and the creeping thought lands with a resounding thud.

Then came the reassurances that I was not going to be arrested, which of course made me wonder if I actually committed an offense so grave I could be arrested. Eventually, I was “briefed” by the VA’s head of public relations, handed back my camera and IDs and was walked out of the building.

I’ve been reassured by my professors, my advisers at the Post-Standard where I’m an intern and by the dean of my school that I did nothing wrong. I was on a public sidewalk and I have every right to take pictures. The security officers were wrong in deleting my photographs. I can’t prove they were profiling me because of my race or religion. I like to believe they were not. But what is more important and more obvious to me is that the environment of fear we are living in is so great, it makes security guards nervous when students do something as innocuous as take pictures of a building. It makes them so nervous they feel that the only thing they can do is delete the pictures, demand identification and detain the student for questioning.

This is just another example of fear making people act irrationally. If they had taken a moment to think it through, it’s pretty obvious that taking pictures of a building, which is plainly visible from a public sidewalk, is not a threat to national security, nor is it a threat to the privacy of patients going in and out of the hospital. But my guess is that the security officers’ only thoughts were that they didn’t want to be held responsible if something happened later. And that fear – that “something is going to happen” – is so prevalent because of the constant harping and fear-mongering by our current leadership.

Sure, it would be nice if security guards knew the ins and outs of journalists’ and photographers’ rights in public places. That kind of education is always a plus for democracy. But I doubt it will make much of a difference until the example of protecting freedoms and liberties and the right to a free press comes from our leaders. No one is asking security guards or law enforcement officials to be less vigilant when it comes to protecting the public. But intimidating a student snapping some photographs of the American flag does not protect the public – and it certainly does not protect democracy.

BACK