Daily Musings

Arnab Goswami-style journalism is killing the essence of debates

Posted on by Musingsoftheother

On the Monday edition of Times Now’s show The Newshour, editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami referred to journalist Asad Ashraf as a ‘cover for the Indian Mujahideen’. The following is Asad’s own take on that particular situation and the present state of journalism as a whole:

As I sit to write this piece, images from the day Arnab Goswami called me a ‘cover for the Indian Mujahideen’ in his studio, return to my mind. If it’s merely the thought of being called a terrorist that scares me, I wonder what it would be like for those who are implicated in cases of terrorism on false charges.
The takeaway from the events of that day not only jolt me, but also present a very grim picture of the time in which we are living. Journalism, once a respected profession has become a tool of hoop-la into the hands of certain promoters who use it as a mechanism to build public opinion and manufacture consent.

Times Now Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami. Image courtesy: Facebook.File image of Times Now editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami. Image courtesy: Facebook
I am sorry but I wouldn’t hesitate to say that Arnab, arguably the most well-known face of Indian TV journalism today is setting a precedent that is very dangerous for the future of this country.

He is teaching a whole bunch of young journalists, who follow him, not to question the narratives propounded by the state machinery, to believe every word of it and call every detractor an ‘anti-national’. While in a democracy where journalism is considered the Fourth Estate, it is the duty of journalists to continue to be watchdogs.

He is bifurcating opinion into the plain binary of national and anti-national
Someone who agrees with him is a nationalist, while others are anti-national. In the name of debate, he is actually running media trials.

One can only imagine the absurdity of a situation, wherein he calls me a sympathiser of the Islamic State and a cover for the Indian Mujahideen just because I pondered over certain loopholes in the police version of the Batla House encounter.
However, what must have really annoyed Arnab is the fact that I not only questioned the authenticity of the encounter, but also the video — that was supposedly released by the Islamic State — featuring one of the ‘absconders’ of the Batla House encounter. And that this came mere months after Arnab allegedly played doctored videos of JNU students on his show must have hit him where it hurts the most.
As a journalist, with an acumen for investigation, Arnab should not only have agreed with me but should have also tried to investigate whether that video was at all genuine.

But on the contrary, I was asked by him that if it was a ‘fancy-dress competition’?
Why not? It could have been a fancy-dress competition — a bi
But on the contrary, I was asked by him that if it was a ‘fancy-dress competition’?
Why not? It could have been a fancy-dress competition — a bit like hoax calls. Don’t we have hoax calls about bombs being planted?

Did the video undergo forensic examination before being aired on Arnab’s Newshour and becoming a matter of debate?

Tasleem Rahmani of the All-India Muslim Council, was right in pointing out the fact that even the employees of Times Now were not sure about the authenticity of that video as they ran the ticker, ‘#BatlamaninISIS’ below the screen followed by a question mark.

But logic ceases to exist when it confronts Arnab Goswami on his Newshour show.
And what replaces it seems to be pure rhetoric woven into allegations and accusations.

However, I realise that I am myself engaging in things of which I have been accusing Arnab, and I am keen to maintain a thick line of difference between myself and him.
Therefore, when I talk about Batla House, I would use reason and logic to substantiate my claims — something that has serious doubts about the credibility of the police theory hovering around this encounter.

The guy apparently featuring in the Islamic State video — Bada Sajid who allegedly fled from the Batla House encounter — has been declared dead twice before this video surfaced, according to media reports. Any well-meaning person would be curious to understand how a man who has died twice — once in Syria and then in Afghanistan — is alive again to send threats to India. But as I said, reason and logic have no place in Arnab’s ‘fish market’ which he calls The Newshour.

If Arnab had bothered to go through the postmortem reports of the two boys killed in that encounter, he might have sat and contemplated his position, rather than shouting at the highest pitch in his studio and presenting himself as the jury. However, the wish to contemplate would only be aroused if there was an inner desire to investigate and reach out for the truth. Arnab, on the other hand, forces himself to believe things that suit his interest are more important than knowing the truth, probably because truth will never fetch him as much TRP as the ignorance of it will.

For TRP-chasers, ignorance is bliss. Then why should one come out of that comfortable zone of ecstasy?

Not least for those who have nothing to offer him except some respect and love. But love and respect have lost their meaning.

Atif Ameen and Sajid who died in that encounter had been hit by a bullet in the back and the head respectively, whereas the police claimed that there was a gun-battle from the front as soon as the cops entered the flat. Both of the deceased had injuries on their bodies that were caused after being hit by some flat object, clearly indicating that the boys were beaten before being shot. All these facts are on record.

If one examines the locality where the encounter took place, it wouldn’t be difficult to ascertain at first sight that it is nearly impossible for anyone to flee the encounter scene in such a heavy presence of the police force in the narrow lanes of Batla House.

Investigations also revealed that these boys had submitted their original documents in the police station while filling up the tenant verification form before renting out a flat. Even the most foolish man, who is a part of such a big conspiracy, will not make that mistake.

Why was a magisterial inquiry as per the guidelines of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) of India not conducted after the encounter?
This is among the many questions that will continue to haunt our democracy if legislators, executives, and the judiciary do not come together to rectify the mistakes committed by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police.
However, I would still refrain from calling this encounter ‘fake’, until a judicial probe is conducted into the matter, and I certainly wish that the findings of the probe actually come as a slap in our collective faces. But I doubt that will happen, which disheartens me.

Before I conclude, I agree that other journalists have the right to point out the defects in my investigation and pave the way for a constructive debate, in a bid to restore the essence of journalism and bring back the journalism of a time when ideas were debated. I fail to understand why the debates have been reduced to ‘us versus them’ and have turned into scuffles between inflated egos. Debate is about engaging with each other in search for the truth and not screaming at each other to score brownie points.

If things do not change for the better, the ultimate loser, in the end, will be journalists and journalism

‘Modi’s Foreign Policy Is Pathetic’ : Salman Khurshid

Posted on by Musingsoftheother

Salman-Khurshid

Edited Excerpts from an interview.

What do you think of Modi’s so far?

It’s pathetic! He does not understand . is not a policeman of the world and it should not aspire to become one. You have to become a conversationalist. You cannot have a one-way conversation. Every leader sells a dream about their country abroad. For example, Malaysia has a thing called “second home in Malaysia”. We do the same by saying, come make in , come invest in . But, frankly, if you have a one-way conversation, to what extent would they be interested?

What people are interested in is as a market. That is our strength. They are not interested in anything else. So, will you explain to them why they should come to ? You come to to invest in or to export from . To this day it is not very clear what Modi means when he says ‘Make in ’. He, too, is relying on the Indian market as an opportunity, but that has been happening since two decades.

The critics of the erstwhile government argue that Modi has been more robust in engaging with the West than the had been? They believe that the was scared of and Russia.

But can you really ignore Russia? Even America cannot do that. Can you ignore and Japan? Can you go to and pretend that there is no Japan? Wouldn’t you have to find a balance between Japan and ? Can you go to Vietnam and pretend that there is no ?

The world today is a very complicated place. But Modi sees it in simplistic terms. It is all about me, mine and the way I think. That is not the way you deal with the world. The world needs very tough negotiations. To deal with the world means to engage in a lot of give and take. But Modi’s focus is elsewhere. So far he has failed to notice that just as the West sees as a market, sees the African continent as a market. But we have paid no attention to the markets in Africa. Even though our strengths in Africa are greater than ’s. We share historical ties with that continent — traditional bonds of history and heritage. In the Middle East, too, we have a strong presence. But you don’t go to the Middle East to meet Indians. You have to go there to speak to the Arabs, but Modi has only spoken to the Indians.

The Middle East wants to know what is happening with Iran and Saudi. What will be the future of and Egypt? How to deal with the ISIS challenge? They want to know when will Palestine become a reality. Has Modi ever spoken on these issues? What is his then?

What has been Modi’s biggest failure so far on the front?

It is his inability to understand the world. He does not understand anything beyond Gujarat. He does not even understand . That is apparent from the results in Bihar. What would they know of the world who don’t even know ?

What do you think about ’s deteriorating relationship with ?

Now again, is not a follower. is a friend. We wanted to be powerful. Nobody will disagree with Modi when he says there should be a more comprehensive Constitution, acceptable from the point of view of the Madhesi community. But if this was our concern, we should have worked on taking it there. We would have introspected on how something like this could happen under our watch. And now that it has happened, we should look forward to resolve it.

What do you think about his engagement with ? Do you think he has been able to maintain the balance of power?

What balance of power?  has been taking him for a ride. is getting a lot out of us without giving us anything. wants to invest in and so they will get to invest in . We had a relationship developing with since the time of Rajiv Gandhi. All that work has already been done by us. But there is a clear understanding that all this cannot be done in a hurry.

By the way, what has delivered to Modi on -occupied Kashmir? What has done to support in any international forum? We need to understand better and try and make them understand us better. You cannot play off against someone. You need to have a direct cordial relationship with them.

Do you think it is important for to have a cordial relationship with ?

I would like somebody to say that we should not have good relationship with. But we have to see who is being hypocritical? Let’s face it. doesn’t make it easy to have a good relationship with them. If they were no problems, would not be a very serious issue. But there are problems. And they are very serious problems. We are a problem for not only on their eastern border but also on the west as we are friends with Afghanistan.

How do you think of as a Foreign Minister?

She is a good idea. I am sure that she would have done much better. She is an outstanding leader. But she has been eclipsed by the Prime Minister’s Office. No surprises there, but in her case the handicaps are somewhat more obvious. She is working under very difficult circumstances.

Although national politics has rarely impacted ’s , do you think recent developments, especially the Bihar shake up, would have an impact, now that the rout is being described as the politics of welfarism and social justice trumping crony capitalism?

There were always problems with the acceptability of reforms. But it would be premature to comment on that right now.

What has been Modi’s biggest achievement on the front?

His hectic reaching out, surely. The energy he has put into it cannot be questioned even if it is not yielding results.

asad.ashraf@tehelka.com