[sacw] sacw dispatch (25 Oct.99)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch
25 October 1999
_______________________
#1. [Pakistan] Christians pray for religious tolerance after attack
#2. Letter to World Bank on Punjab Health Systems Corporation India
#3. Indian Media & Kargil: Information Blitz with Dummy Missiles
_______________________
#1.
[Pakistan] CHRISTIANS PRAY FOR RELIGIOUS TOLERANCE AFTER CHURCH ATTACK

By Amir Zia, Associated Press, 10/24/99 08:02
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) In churches throughout Islamic Pakistan,
Christians prayed for tolerance Sunday as they hung black flags on their
homes and strung black banners in major cities to protest an attack on a
Roman Catholic Church.

''We offered special prayers in all the churches at Sunday Mass for an
end to religious violence and terrorism in the country,'' said Shahbaz
Bhatti, of the Christian Liberation Front, an organization created to
protect the rights of Pakistan's minority Christians.

On Friday, Muslim extremist Ahmed Saeed, 25, tried to burn down the
church in Lahore, the capital of eastern Punjab province. Firefighters
saved the church, but several Bibles, pictures of Jesus, as well as
statues and furniture were destroyed.

Ahmed told police he tried to burn down the church to protest against
the United States because it is trying to force Pakistan to stop its
support for Islamic militants fighting in Indian-held Kashmir.

Religious minorities in Pakistan, an overwhelmingly Muslim country,
often complain of harassment and victimization by extremist religious
groups.

Christians, who comprise 5 percent of Pakistan, also want the government
to repeal a controversial blasphemy law that imposes the death sentence
for insulting Islam or its prophet Mohammed.

''The blasphemy law is discriminatory and being used to victimize the
minorities,'' Bhatti said.
_______________________
#2.
[24 Oct.99]
=20
=46rom, Dr. Vineeta Gupta
5042, Afim Wali Gali Bhatinda,
Punjab, India =20

To, Mr. Tawhid Nawaz Task Manager
World Bank

Dear Mr.Nawaz, =20
This letter is in continuation of my meeting with you on 23rd Sept.99 in
your office at Washington DC , my previous email letter dated 14.10.99 and
conversation with you on telephone on 14.10.99. Health Sector in Punjab
state of India including Punjab Health Systems Corporation(PHSC) funded by
World bank, is riddled with allegations of corruption, nepotism and
favoritism, often the reports about which are carried in newspapers.
Latest being 90 lakh Rs. scandal in Sangrur district and medicine scam
worth Rs.one crore in Ludhiana District. Still WB says "World Bank is
satisfied with PHSC functioning" ( The Tribune dated 15.10.99). According
to media reports dated 4.10.99, Punjab has highest per capita debt today.
The debt burden has crossed Rs 24,000 crores. Punjab once a most
prosperous state has virtually gone bankrupt. Today's corrupt loaners are
indebting the present and future generations. Ms.Sarah Zaidi Research
director, Center for Economic and Social Rights(CESR) New York, and myself
plan to document the role of State and World Bank in the health sector
reforms in Punjab. I sent a fax letter to you from CESR New York
seeking an appointment regarding the project on the Punjab Health Systems
Corporation funded by World Bank Then I contacted you on telephone and
sought your appointment which you granted on 23rd Sept. at 10 AM. You
asked me weather I was interested in taking or giving information. I said
since I am researching for the project, my interest is in knowing things
from you. You further said that you would like some feed back also. So I
got some newspaper cuttings about corruption and scandals in health sector
in Punjab including PHSC sent to me from India. I reached your office at
fixed time. You allowed half an hour for the interview though it went on
for about an hour. I asked you if I could record the interview on
tape-recorder. You told me not to as it would be better otherwise. At that
time I did not realize the consequences of this. I was most impressed by
your accessibility in contrast to the officials back home, and I told you
so. The meeting went well. We discussed the Punjab Health Systems
Corporation and nothing else in our meeting. You specifically told me that
I could quote you on the fact that if Punjab Govt. fails to fulfills its
promise in the PHSC of giving its share of funds then the world Bank will
not give its next reimbursement installment to PHSC. In the meeting you
also asked me why in my view WB was receiving so many complaints about the
projects in Punjab. We discussed many more things that could be
controversial. Since I had not specifically asked if I could quote you on
those, I voluntarily refrained from mentioning it to press back home
though you never told me that any part or discussion in the meeting was
secret. After coming to Punjab, India, I had a press conference
regarding my visit to USA. The Project on PHSC and meeting with you was a
part of it. The press people choose to highlight that part more than other
things, which I discovered after the news was out. I came to know from
the local correspondents that PHSC is totally denying that I talked to you
about PHSC at all. I called you in Washington DC on Phone and left a
message for you as you were busy in the meeting. Then I again called after
some time and was able to talk to you. You told me on phone that you meant
I could quote you in my article but not through some third person though
you never mentioned third person aspect in the meeting, more ever I never
said I was writing an article. When I pointed out to you that I told you
about doing a project and not article you repeatedly went to say on phone
that it was a 'silly' project. Let me add here that the project of
assessing role of State and WB in Punjab health sector reforms may appear
silly to you. But it relates to our right to health, ever increasing debt
burden contributing to factors leading once prosperous state to
bankruptcy, finding ways and means to better the situation, demanding
transparency in fund utilization to curb corruption and public
participation before formulation of the policies that effects millions and
indebts the nation to International Financial Institutions. Certainly in no
way it appears silly to us who are suffering because of these things,
aggravated by insensitive and corrupt watch dogs. Further you said that
you asked me about the complaints, only after I presented you the material,
but in fact you totally denied talking about that issue in the press. I
gave you those newspaper cuttings that I got from India. You also said on
phone that you were beginning to doubt my intentions which according to
you were "intent to harm these poor fellows who are trying to do good" and
"maliciously trying to harm these and Punjab Govt.". The whole State of
Punjab knows what good your 'poor fellows' are doing here. I would
request you to clarify, what you meant by maliciously trying to harm Punjab
govt., as it is a serious allegation and was absolutely uncalled for. =20
There could be some disagreement on the details, meaning of discussion we
had in the meeting or how the press projected, but totally denying that we
discussed PHSC in the meeting has really left me disillusioned. Herein I
am attaching the copy of the newspaper (Desh Sewak) cutting with your
statement. The English translation of the last paragraph is "during this
Tawhid Nawaz Task Manager of World Bank was also contacted on telephone
then he made it clear that though Vineeta Gupta had met him yet nothing of
any sort was talked about Punjab Health Corporation at all". After reading
it, for many days I did not feel like responding for the futility of the
matter when you are denying it totally. But I have too strong a conviction
about strength of truth to let it go just like that though I have suffered
a great deal for this conviction. I can prove, at how so ever high
personal cost I have to pay for this, that we talked about PHSC, you told
me that I could quote you on the matter as written in the paragraph five of
this letter. I have always been harassed , threatened, prosecuted for
fighting against corruption, nepotism and human rights violations here in
Punjab but my conviction with the cause has invariably increased with each
onslaught on me. =20
with best wishes, =20
Dr. Vineeta Gupta =20
__________________
#3.
Economic and Political Weekly =20
October 9, 1999=20
Commentary

MEDIA AND KARGIL:
INFORMATION BLITZ WITH DUMMY MISSILES

By Geeta Seshu

KARGIL caught the Indian media unawares, as it supposedly did the
government and the army. Covering the war from the battle-lines was easier
said than done, for the army clamped down on direct coverage barely a few
days after the air-strikes were launched on May 8. As a result, the media
did the next best thing : it manufactured stories. Stories, euphemism in
journalistic parlance for reports/features/analysis, were written up on
every aspect of the conflict, often going far beyond government briefings
and reports of the army handouts to bring us second and third-hand accounts
of various actions in the battle. The media blitz included reports covering
a plethora of possible angles of the conflict. We had human interest
profiles of families of martyrs and the plight of villagers in border
areas, poignant reports of letters from home and STD calls home and little
spot stories on tailors stitching shrouds for the dead soldiers, the food
we feed our soldiers, corporate responses to Kargil and views of
celebrities on the conflict. Obviously, Kargil was major news and every
newspaper and television channel wasted little time to get onto the story
of the day. But what was the sub-text of all this verbiage? And
importantly, what was left unsaid?

We looked at three leading national English dailies: The Times of India
(TOI), the Indian Express (IE) and the Asian Age (AA) between May 9 and
July 31. Our analysis covered news-reports, features, editorials and
editorial page articles.

For over two and a half months, war-games occupied television viewers and
readers of newspapers and magazines. The hindutva right spoke openly about
=91finishing off Pakistan, the enemy=92 and of =91a strong and mighty=
India=92. The
VHP proclaimed in a meeting at Hardwar that =911999 was the year to wipe
Pakistan off the globe=92 (AA, June 27). At the height of the crisis, the RS=
S
organ Panchjanya exhorted Vajpayee to rise and fulfil the role destiny has
chalked out for him, rhetorically asking =91after all, why have we made the
bomb=92.

No doubt, the newspapers covered by this study, while publicising these
statements and others by Advani (=91Pakistan is a rogue state=92), Kushabhau
Thakre (=91Kargil conflict is nothing short of war=92, IE, June 16), did
condemn these statements, but these were mere formalities. The TOI, in an
edit (June 23), cautioned against the nuclear option, not because such a
course of action was disastrous but merely to counsel the government to
adhere to a =91no first strike=92 commitment.

Behind the War Verbiage

What did we get to read/see about the actual action? Initially, very
little. The World Cup cricket was on, and while journalists covered the
army briefing on Kargil, much more space and air-time was given for cricket
coverage. Sponsored supplements filled newspapers while television news
gave more importance to battles on the cricket ground.

Cricket and Kargil did meet when India played Pakistan: newspaper
headlines were apprehensive of the 'battle' ahead, emphasising security
arrangements. Indian Express (June 8) had a curtain-raiser entitled "India,
Pakistan to 'fight' it out today". The report itself outlined the high
excitement over the match stating that it was a sad fact but true that, for
many of the spectators and journalists, the Indo-Pak cricket match 'seems
the next best thing to a war'. Naturally, when India did beat Pakistan,
headlines gloated. The Asian Age (June 9) distastefully proclaimed, 'Reborn
India kill Pak'.

Till this day, the press is divided about the nature of the army action in
Kargil. Even the semantics of the army action is confused. Was it a war, a
battle or a conflict? (a skirmish it was not, not with 410 bodies returning
home). Were 'they' infiltrators, mujahideen intruders, Pak-backed
intruders, the enemy? In the absence of any clear idea, it was safer for
the press to use all of the above, in the same copy, at different times,
throughout its coverage. Some newspapers were in no doubt that a war was
on. The Asian Age, for example, gave us headlines like, 'The 4th
India-Pakistan war has started' (AA, June 24) or 'Nawaz tries bomb
blackmail' (AA, June 25) and finally, when a truce of sorts was called and
Pakistani troops began to pull out, the same newspaper said, 'Pakistan
quits India' (July 12).

The Indian Express was not far behind. 'From war to Wimbledon, its India's
day all the way', the paper said on July 5, celebrating the army's
re-capture of Tiger Hills and the Bhupati-Paes tennis victory at Wimbledon.
Reporting on the action, said to be a turning point of the conflict, the
reporter said, "They had reached the top, battling each inch of their way
to the top". And later, "The night sky over the steep mountain remained an
awesome orange throughout and the pungent smell of gunpowder filled the
air".

All this, despite the fact that journalists were unable to get to the
actual scene of battle except in the last stages of the conflict. According
to reports from Rahul Bedi (AA, July 23) and Gaurav C Sawant (IE, June 19),
'Hacks have a battle on their hands', reporters were not allowed to go
beyond National Highway IA till July 5 ('Army can't stem media invasion',
AA, July 13). In the light of these revelations, what does one make of the
report from the Indian Express on the recapture of Tiger Hills. Especially
when the same report informs that there was no contact with the soldiers
and there was 'complete radio silence'.

In the main, however, reportage was colourful and descriptive. Consider
another report: "The flares lit up the night sky darkening the mood at the
Drass HQ. The infantry soldiers were advancing slowly and cautiously". Or
this one: "The pakis were a mean, hawk-eyed lot who slept during the day
and kept vigil at night". This priceless quote was not even attributed to
anyone, either army officers/jawans, local residents of Kargil, or even
intelligence personnel. When the reporter could not have got within seeing
distance of the 'pakis', how could this piece of fiction rear its head in a
serious newspaper report?

A story headlined, 'Pakis play dirty, booby trap body of army officer',
about the handing over of the body of major R S Adhikari and three jawans
(June 28, 1999), said that the Indian jawans "jumped at the offer since the
thought of their beloved colleagues' bodies lying in the open was just too
agonising". Again, there was simply no qualifications to such 'emotional'
reportage and the statements were blithely reported, unattributed to any
source.

The other newspapers were marginally better or worse. The Times of India,
reporting the reactions of jawans to the cricket world cup, quoted a jawan
as saying, "we need to settle this issue once and for all" and "Tell Sachin
to take some rest as we blow the daylights out of Pakistan. They'd better
know that this is not cricket, they just cannot win."

The editor of Indian Express, Shekhar Gupta, in an edit-page article
entitled, 'Let the media witness the mess' (July 14, 1999), made an
impassioned plea that journalists be allowed to cover the conflict from the
battle-lines. Gupta argued that reporters at the front were young and
enthusiastic but definitely too fond of their own lives to wilfully allow a
'40 kg sonofabitch on our heads'. If one inferred from Gupta's article that
journalists were indeed young and inexperienced, what were the newspapers
sub-editors and editors doing? These and other instances clearly bring out
the manner in which basic editorial checks and balances simply did not
function, or were they allowed to sing a different tune?

For newspapers, all the action did not emanate from the front. The
conflict opened up several other fronts. The battle-cry found its echo in
remote villages, thanks to the army's new policy of dispatching home the
bodies, not only of officers (as in the past) but also of jawans. Speaking
of the change in policy ('Bodies replace urns as Army changes policy', IE,
July 16), the newspapers marked this departure from the norm as a sign of
the army's 'new openness' and readiness to facilitate the involvement of
the entire population in the 'war-effort'.

The valour of death on the battle-field, the 'celebration' of the
'martyrdom' of the officer or soldier, the readiness of others (either from
the family or those who attended the funeral) to 'give up' one more youth
for the country and to war...this was the common theme running through
these reports. The tragedy and futility of war, the sheer wastage of a life
or even the loss to a family of an important member, perhaps a sole
breadwinning member, these sentiments were rarely reflected in news-reports.

A glaring example of a reporter's participation in this exercise: The
Asian Age (July 4) reporting on the funeral of Lt Vijayant Thapa (headlined
=96 'Son of India') described how military police directed the public to the
funeral site a police van with a loudspeaker beckoned everyone to pay
homage to the soldier who had died. The report ended with the words: "and
all that we Indians can do is to thank God for those brave soldiers who
sacrifice their todays for the sake of our tomorrows."

But not all reports were celebratory. A report from the Indian Express
(July 13) condemned the politicisation of death: 'Politics of patriotism
shadows martyr's last rites' is said in a headline, adding that the next of
kin were pushed aside as politicians turned the funeral into an opportunity
to hog the limelight. If RSS functionaries dominated this funeral, the
Congress was not far behind, taking over the funeral of Lt Saurabh Kalia in
Palampur, (IE, June 13).

Calling for Consensus

Newspapers also vied with one another to obtain reactions from the upper
strata of society. The Indian Express carried a daily feature titled,
'Calling for consensus', ostensibly to support the 'war' effort. The column
featured celebrities from the more glamorous walks of life. The TOI (July
5) carried a full-page feature, 'Everybody loves a hero =96 Mumbaiites on ho=
w
they view the Indian soldier', peppered with the views of the smart set.

The newspapers also carried reports of the 1965/71 war veterans and
highlight some instances of war widows still waiting for compensation
(notably, The Times of India (July 11)) which devoted a full page to the
issue) but these were few and far between, remained at the 'human interest'
level and failed to trace the administrative negligence and corruption
because of which compensation was swallowed up.

Every newspaper had its pet project for Kargil. The TOI fund was entitled
'Zara yaad karo qurbani' while the IE tied up with Iridium to provide
phones for soldiers at the front. The IE even co-sponsored a programme,
presumably a fund-raiser, 'Aye watan tere liye' in Delhi on July 17,
utilising for publicity, a photograph captioned 'tears of pride', showing
the wife of an officer saluting the coffin of her husband.

All the other shows in the 'Kargil-utsav', from entertainment programmes,
designer shows, corporate schemes for proceeds of sales of various
products, opinion polls and other 'Kargil specials' received more than
their fair share of publicity. The designers' show, according to the Asian
Age (August 12) 'woke up too late, but when they did, they did it in
style'!

The same newspaper (July 28) carried a report of a computer game 'I love
India' wherein the user can cross the LOC and destroy Lahore. The tone of
the report is laudatory and is meant, the reporter states blandly, "for all
those who want to vent their anger at Pakistani intruders". There were a
few articles in the edit pages of all three newspapers expressing distress
at this trend (Nivedita Menon, 'Plastic patriotism in times of war', TOI;
Mushirul Hasan's 'Don't teach me patriotism' IE, July 17, or Bachi
Karkaria's 'Patriotism in a fashionable war', TOI, July 18) but these were
virtually drowned in the sea of stories which publicised the corporate
milking of Kargil.

What did the newspapers neglect or de-emphasise?

Communalisation of the conflict: The newspapers analysed refrained from
any overt or covert communalisation of the Kargil conflict. Muslim soldiers
who died in the action were specially mentioned, perhaps to reinforce that
India was fighting an Islamic state with believers of Islam, though this
was not spelt out. When several Muslim organisations came out in support of
the Kargil action holding up placards proclaiming, 'We love India, we hate
Pakistan', the press regretted the fact that Muslims had to exhibit their
patriotism in this manner. However, there was one glaring omission: the
coverage of riots in Ahmedabad and the involvement of the Hindu right in
fomenting trouble. Riots were sparked off when protestors burnt effigies of
Pakistan prime minister Nawaz Sharif and then continued their protest by
raising anti-Muslim solgans. Preparations seemed underfoot much earlier as
a report in the Indian Express (June 18) clearly indicated: 'BJP workers
hone talent in effigy-making'. The BJP's Yuva Morcha president claimed that
he had a master's degree in effigy making! Yet, alarm bells failed to ring.

The media and US mediation: Reportage on the US intervention gave no
insights about the US new support for India. Instead, there was gratitude
and childish glee at winning big brother's support. IE gloated: 'Sharif on
his knees as US says what Delhi wants' (July 6). Bilateralism was now a
dirty word. In a signed article, the Indian Express editor Shekhar Gupta
(June 30), actually chastised the government for parroting the 'no third
party intervention' line of the past asking whether chanting this 'mantra'
was smart?

Torture of six Indian soldiers: Front-paged reports in all newspapers
mentioned the government and army's version of the mutilation of the
soldiers. The incident marked a turning point in the conflict. Reporters
either did not care, or practised self-censorship in the 'national
interest', to ask basic questions: the motivation of Pakistan to return
mutilated bodies, whether all or only one body was mutilated (as later
reports ) or the possibility of natural decomposition.

Financial costs of war and conflict: Newspapers scarcely touched upon any
estimates about the losses of war and the Kargil action. The Asian Age was
an exception in that it carried a solitary report quoting a study from
Assocham on the short and long-term impact of the Kargil action, estimating
the daily cost of the war at Rs 30 crore.

Again, newspapers were silent about who benefits from the conflict? Which
arms manufacturers, apart from Bofors, would obtain extra orders thanks to
Kargil? Or, more disturbing, the chorus to push up defence expenditure in
the wake of the defence forces' ill-preparedness to deal with Kargil.

Intelligence failures: The IE mentioned in passing, without attributing
its report to any source, that patrols in the area was discontinued. When
and why it failed to mention. It also had a report that an 'Intelligence
alert in 1997 on the LoC was ignored" (July 20). When Outlook newsmagazine
stated that a top army officer had alerted his seniors about the
infiltration, they instead carried the army's denial of the story. The TOI
spoke of the lack of alertness of Indian intelligence when Pakistan placed
orders with Austrian agencies for 50,000 pairs of snowshoes, thermal
jackets, snow tents, etc. However, these reports were not attributed to any
source and failed to confront the army, either in its daily briefing or
otherwise. They simply died in the army's convenient 'maun-vrat'.

Kargil vs Siachen: Kargil, defence analysts said, was Pakistan's answer to
Siachen. Yet newspapers, save for one or two reports (IE, TOI), did little
to question the comparision; failed to sufficiently give the public any
historical analysis of the conflict or the meaning of LAC/LoC and the
importance of bilateral negotiations.

The other side: What of the Indian press's coverage of Pak affairs? At the
height of the Kargil action, Indian newspapers began paying attention to
the Pak press. The TOI began a 'Periscope on Pak' and IE had 'The other
side'. In the main, the snippets chosen highlighted the 'unreasonable'
nature of people of Pakistan. AA was the only paper to print full-fledged
articles which were both 'supportive' of the action of the
'freedom-fighters' and critical of the leadership of Nawaz Sharif and his
mishandling of the Kargil situation.

The government's hand in misinformation: The caretaker government was
ham-handed in the extreme. Reporters were disallowed anywhere near the
scene of the action; Pak TV was blocked and VSNL jammed the Dawn newspaper
website. And how did our press react? The protests and condemnations only
seemed like feeble bleatings for all the effect they had on the government
and army. IE magnanimously gave the information and broadcasting minister
Pramod Mahajan a chance to give reasons: 'Why I blocked Pak TV' (June 30,
1999).

India's first televised war: Not a single newspaper or their television
columnists discussed India's first televised war. Rajesh Joshi writing in
Outlook, (July 26), mentioned how TV newscasters dressed in battle-fatigues
and standing in disused bunkers added just that authentic touch to their
reports from the 'front'. Rajesh Ramachandran wrote in the Hindustan Times
of being hit by shrapnel from a missile, the other side being alerted by
lights carelessly switched on by a television crew. But other newspapers
maintained a discreet silence about this.

National debate on Kargil: When the opposition raised the demand for a
Rajya Sabha session on Kargil, the press meekly agreed that the all-party
meeting was an apt substitute and that 'wrong timing' marked the
opposition's demand (IE, June 25). It was to the dubious distinction of
Congress member Mani Shankar Aiyar(IE, June 15) to point out that the
present prime minister A B Vajpayee had demanded, and succeeded in
obtaining, both a special RS session in 1962 during the war with China and
the resignation of then defence minister Krishna Menon.

Inquiry into Kargil: The press did no serious evaluation of the prime
minister's assurance that an inquiry would be conducted into the Kargil
action and the later statements by both the PM and the sefence minister
back-tracking on this assurance that the inquiry would not cover
intelligence failure.

Despite the reams of matter in the newspapers and air-time devoted to
Kargil, are we better informed? Are we in a position of trust vis-a-vis our
government and media on the actual state of affairs on the border? Are we
confident that the enormous sums of money spent on defence are being
utilised correctly, leave alone justified? Or are we ready to accept the
rising chorus of the hawks that the defence expenditure is 'inadequate' and
needs to be upped, in the light of increasing agression from our neighbour?
Ten days after George Fernandes proclaimed that the last of the 'intruders
had been driven out and the Kargil action was effectively at an end', why
did 70 soldiers lose their lives?

The media failed to or chose not to seriously analyse who would be the
ultimate losers in the Kargil confrontation. An overwhelming number of
persons on both sides who died in battle were poor jawans. Increased
military expenditure will also further be disproportionately borne on both
sides by the poor in the form of indirect taxation. Little or no effort was
made to bring out the fact that the common people in both countries had no
stake in the war and that Kargil was simply reinforcing the fundamentalist
forces on both sides of the border.

The elites consensus on the issue was also not carefully analysed and this
should be understood in the context of the monopoly ownership of the media
in the country, i e, the owners of the media are themselves part of the
ruling elite.

[The above is an abridged version of a detailed study on media coverage of
Kargil conducted by the Centre for Monitoring the Media (CMM). The CMM is
an independent, non-profit making organisation comprising mediapersons who
analyse how various events are reflected in newspapers, magazines and
television, laying bare the structure and subjective biases of the media.]
____________________________________________
SOUTH ASIA CITIZENS WEB DISPATCH is an informal, independent &
non-profit citizens wire service run by South Asia Citizens Web
(http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since1996.