This is the Part-VI of the series on political communication By S.Narendra, Former Information Adviser to PM, Principal Information Officer to Government, and Spokesperson.
Disclaimer: Some of the media friends may find part of the content shocking!
|
Political
communication is the oxygen of an open democracy like India. During the first
decade-and-a-half after independence, such political communication closely followed
the economic development model and foreign policy stance adopted by the government.
The ‘Cold War’ was at its height, along with massive propaganda battle for
mind space. India was struggling to navigate through the complex
international politics. One of the far sighted measures introduced during
this time was to protectthe Indian media against global competition and
propaganda war. This was aimed at allowing Indian media to develop and grow
and evolve their own perspectives on internal developments and India’s engagement
with the outside world. While the foreign media enjoyed as much freedom as
the domestic one in reporting and commenting on Indian affairs, it could not
exert a dominant influence on public opinion. Read on this Part-V in series
of political communication.
|
Some
samples of reporting by the international media would show that Indian policy
of restricting foreign media entry in the formative years of Indian democracy
was not totally misplaced.
During
the Falkland conflict in 1982 between Great Britian and Argentina, the All India Radio morning
broadcast had this headline: British armed forces are poised to free Falklands
(Islas Malvinas in Spanish). This story was sourced to Reuters, a British
agency. Because AIR had used a British source, it reflected the British view
point and ignored Argentina’s legitimate claim to these islands in Antartic
ocean, closer to that country than Britain that had gained control over the
islands in 1833.
In
1980s and 1990s, when there was separatist militancy in Punjab, most western
agencies reporting this agitation used to
begin their stories thus: ‘Punjab, homeland of Sikhs’. It was ignored that half of
the Sikh population of India lived outside Punjab, and India has been their
homeland.
Until
mid-1990s, the western media showed a bias in reporting terrorism in J&K. Once
the US government softened its stance on J&K dispute and began to view it
as a bilateral issue between Paksitan and India, their media changed tack. When Tony Blair government asserted in 1997 that
it had a role in resolving this dispute, Reuters reports invariably toed the
British government line on this subject. Once a new government came to power
and changed this policy, the agency stories on the dispute too underwent a noticeable
shift.
India
has been a victim of terrorism exported from Pakistan for long. However,
India’s complaints on this score went unheeded in the west. Their media largely
reflected the western governments’ line and viewed the separatists as Kashmir
freedom fighters. Post 9/11 terrorist attack, however, there was a 360-degree turn
in the stand of those governments and media belonging to those countries in New
York.
Looking
at these instances of foreign media behaviour, one would begin to appreciate
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s move in 1956 to bar the entry of foreign
media into India and thus facilitate the Indian media to develop. The Union
Cabinet in May 1956 formally put restrictions on foreign news agencies from
directly feeding Indian newspapers and other news outlets. To quote from the Cabinet
decision: “Our policy should be in all such cases (of news dissemination) be
that communication facilities can be granted only where the distribution of
news (by such agencies) within the country
is to be effected through an Indian news agency, owned, managed by Indians... which
would have full and final authority in the selection of foreign news...and
would be in a position to supply Indian news in reasonable volume to the foreign
news agencies with whom they have a working arrangement”.
This
policy continued almost unchanged until 1991.
It
is amply clear the discussions recorded in that cabinet meeting that the
government was keen to project developments abroad in India but also project
its own point of view on international matters. It did not want the foreign
media to thrust its western bias on Indian public opinion. The international
information order historically was dominated by the media from the West (please
refer to MacBride report, UNESCO 1978).
The
prime minister, who also shaped the foreign policy right from the interim
government days, was wary of the ‘cold war’ between the west and the Soviet
Union (as early as 1946, Winston Churchill had famously used the expression
“Iron Curtain’ has fallen on Europe). The ‘cold war’ had impacted the global
media and divided them into advocates of rival ideologies. The rival military
alliances such as NATO,SEATO,CENTO had been forged by the West which faced the
Warsaw Pact allies. It may be impolitic to call the media partisan but their
reporting and commentaries were visibly coloured. Never before in history, in a
peace time, countries competed so fiercely for
propagating their ideologies through
massive propaganda apparatus such as the Voice Of America, Radio Free Europe,
US Information Agency, Radio Soviet Union, Soviet information Service, Radio
China and Radio KMT. The academia in all the contending countries had received
patronage from their respective governments
for undertaking research on
perceived ‘enemy countries’ and
contributed to the raging propaganda war.
Media
Freedom Upheld: In a way, by 1956, India had openly embraced ‘non-alignment’
foreign policy, as it did not want to be drawn into ‘cold war’. In some ways,
the government was extending this policy to media, especially the Indian wire
agencies. Full credit must be given to Nehru for upholding the freedom of the
press.
In an often quoted speech at AINEC or editors body, he
had said that he prefers a chaotic Press to a (officially) disciplined Press.
In a
deliberate move, the government set up separate official agencies for media
relations and government advertising. Detailed guidelines were prescribed for
distributing advertising budget in order to ensure that it was not used as a
tool for influencing the Press.
Although
the Indian news agencies received indirect financial and other support much as
agencies like AFP, Reuters and broadcasters
like CNN had received official patronage from their home governments.
Successive governments, of course until the infamous 1975 Emergency, did not
try to arm twist them. As a result of the government maintaining an arm’s
length, Indian agencies like PTI and UNI
gained professional credibility unlike the national news agencies set up
in many Afro-Asian countries.
The
relative protection from competition enjoyed by the Indian media has enabled it
to develop as a robust wing of Indian democracy as the 1956 Cabinet resolution
prevailed right up to 1991. This policy was relaxed during 1998-2000 to allow
FDI in Indian media. Further, as the Indian media was able to present an independent
and Indian perspectives on international
issues, it was possible for Indian public opinion to gain access to
international news and views that was
not influenced by cold war politics. However, it has to be acknowledged here
that the coverage of foreign news in Indian media, especially AIR was not only
limited but such news and views
largely were sourced from foreign media.
There was no restriction on the circulation of foreign newspapers or access to
foreign broadcasts. But not many individuals could afford them. The Indian
newspapers were permitted to enter into
arrangements with foreign newspapers for
reproducing articles and commentaries appearing in such partner foreign newspapers.
Mostly English language newspapers had made use of such government rules. The
language media by and large relied on Indian wire services for their foreign
news as well as domestic coverage. The Indian wire agencies had agreements with
most foreign wire agencies for exchange of news. Although they were expected to
filter such news flow to their subscribers, rarely did they exercise this
right.
The freedom enjoyed by Indian media as well as the protection from
global competition offered by 1956 government decision have contributed to the
emergence of Indian media barons.
Numerous
developments in the economic, political and international spheres set the
course of political communication as sieved through the Indian media. After the
non-aligned nations conference in Bandung in Indonesia held in 1955, India, Indonesia,
Egypt and Yugoslavia and their leaders came to be viewed as the spokespersons
of the third world. India and China moved into the Bhai-Bhai phase. The Soviet Union, that had been upset by India joining the Common Wealth, The
Soviet media used to refer to India as the lackey of the West. But the
Indo-Soviet relations suddenly changed after the Soviet leaders Bulganin and
Nikita Krushchev visited India in 1955. The Soviet offer of technical and
financial help to India in setting up government projects strebgthened the ties.
Indian diplomacy had played a significant role in the peace process in the
Korean Peninsula where China and Soviet
Union were confronting the US. India was also active in the peace process in
Indo-China where the West was facing China. Pakistan had joined the western
alliance and the US and Britain had sided with Pakistan in the UN Security Council.
The political discourse was unfavourable to the west and correspondingly there
was not so subtle a tilt in favour of the Soviet Union and its satellite
countries.
As
mentioned in an earlier post, The INC session at Avadi had adopted the resolution
of setting up a socialistic pattern of society. This was soon followed by the framing of the Second five-year plan that had
borrowed the Soviet model of economic development with emphasis on heavy
industry development. And the Soviets had come forward to offer technical and
financial assistance to government in setting up big projects. Cumulatively,
all such developments had increased the favourable news fall related to the Soviet Union, China and third world
countries such as Egypt. India’s staying out of western alliances, its economic
preference for socialist model and moves to expand the Non-alignment movement were openly disapproved by the United States through its Secretary of
State John Foster Dulles.
Indian envoy to the UN Krishna Menon, described by US
President Eisenhower as ‘a menace’, was a widely reported figure in India. His anti-west
and anti-imperial forces utterances used to hog the headlines.
Misgivings
about the government’s distinct tilt
towards the ‘socialist bloc’, within the professed ‘non-alignment’ foreign
policy were not heard until 1959, when Dalai
Lama came into exile in India. By then, China had moved troops to Aksai Chin, ceded
to it by Pakistan. This was also the time when Gen. K.N. Thimmaiah had offered
his resignation to the then defence minister Krishna Menon over differences
regarding defence preparedness to meet the China threat. As recalled earlier,
Rajaji’s Swatantra party had hoisted its flag of opposition to prime minister
Nehru’s economic and foreign policy.
 |
| The author:sunarendra@gmail.com |
PM writes to CMs: The
political communication emanating from the ruling Congress and government
communication at this stage of evolution had got mixed up. Most of the
newspapers and media professionals were followers of the national and state
leaders from the freedom struggle days. There was a sort of hero worship that
reflected in the reporting of statements and activities of such leaders, many
of whom had become government ministers or prominent party functionaries. Prime
Minister Nehru was both a prolific speaker and an equally prolific letter
writer to colleagues, state chief ministers and foreign leaders. In an unsual
move, the prime minister thought it fit to write letters to CMs on national and
international affairs and the engagement of the Union government with such
issues. Some persons unfairly criticised Nehru on the ground that such letters did
not deal with issues relevant to States. But the fact is it was a far sighted
effort to keep the state leadership informed of global issues impacting India
as the States are vital stake-holders in the Federation. Nehru’s statements and
his correspondence with Indian and foreign leaders were closely tracked by
media. The tradition of carrying lengthy reports on the speeches and statements
of political leaders that was in vogue during the freedom movement continued
even after independence.
This
made the official PR work less difficult!
