Jyoti Punwani - The media's attitude to AAP // Anchors' agenda?
Should the media have a different perspective on the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) than it does on other parties? Should the adversarial relationship with government, which forms the basis of a free media, be modified when it comes to AAP?
There is no getting away from the fact that AAP is the only party today that has come to power not on the basis of caste/community/region. It is the only party in at least the last two decades to have made a Muslim candidate, and a woman at that, stand from a predominantly Hindu constituency. Shazia Ilmi lost by just 326 votes, implying that most of RK Puram’s residents voted for her. The last time a Muslim candidate stood from here was in 2003, and he got just 77 votes. To see such a phenomenon happen, has been the dream of many Muslim political activists: to have one of their community trusted by the majority community to represent them for five years. This is an important indicator that society is secular, and has as much impact as a predominantly Hindu colony letting a Muslim live amongst them. It took AAP, a party derided by secularists for not spelling out its stand on communalism, to have the guts to do this.
There are other firsts – transparent and comparatively low election costs, and honest candidates. It is a measure of the cynicism of the media towards our democratic electoral process - reflecting the cynicism of citizens - that elections fought with lavish funds from unknown sources don’t make headlines any more. Fortunately, the number of criminals getting tickets continues to make headlines, but with such regularity that such reports obviously have had no effect on the parties.
Perhaps one of the most noteworthy features of AAP has been its multiple manifestoes, framed after consultation with the aam aadmi and aurat. Indeed, its close involvement with the ordinary citizen, that has continued even after winning the elections, makes AAP a truly democratic party.
The media never loses an opportunity to declare that India is the world’s largest democracy. The hollowness of our democracy in many spheres is never accepted by the media. Look at the choice of useless candidates in every Lok Sabha and Assembly election. In what way do they represent their constituents, except in the most narrow, clannish sense? Even then, those voters not belonging to that grouping are left out, a minority that can be ignored.
Media profiles of candidates in pre-election reports dissect the caste/community composition of every constituency, but rarely talk about the candidates’ solutions to the electorate’s basic problems. In a city such as Mumbai, some candidates may be selected without taking the electorate’s linguistic/religious identity into account (for eg, Gurudas Kamat of the Congress). But can voters identify with them? Except for a few exceptions (Sunil Dutt and now his daughter Priya, and most of the Shiv Sena MPs), have they ever been accessible to their constituents across classes? Do any of them ever talk about breaking the stranglehold of builders on this city of homeless millions?
Besides voting, do citizens have any right to decide how they want to live? Forget Adivasis, who exist beyond the reach of our democratic structures, despite having the most liberal Constitutional provisions applicable to them. Do citizens of the country’s political or financial capital, have any say in how their city or even their suburb or even their neighbourhood, should be developed? Do economic policies and infrastructural projects reflect the needs of the majority? Can these be opposed successfully by citizens without long-drawn out and expensive court battles or mass agitations, which the elected government tries to crush with all its might?
Yet, the media gloats about India’s democratic institutions. In such a situation, AAP, in its actions both before and after the elections, is truly a people’s party. Even parties formed with mass support (though the mass may belong to one linguistic/regional community) such as the Shiv Sena or the TDP, have had dictatorial leaders decide policy. These leaders may have had their fingers on the pulse of their members, but never have they consulted their electorate before writing their manifesto. And to reiterate – ordinary citizens – many of them illiterate, steeped in prejudice and tradition - were not asked by AAP about demands pertaining to religion/caste/community/region, but about daily life problems that they face in their constituency.
The Ramlila maidan swearing-in in which the ministers-to-be arrived by Metro, Kejriwal’s idealistic speech and his unmelodious rendering of a popular Hindi film song; AAP’s immediate effect on most other parties, be it on their unashamed extravagance, or their sudden realisation that their electorates matter; its effect on Delhi’s government officials who for the first time fear being actually punished if caught asking for a bribe; Delhi’s foul-mouthed constables expressing their desire to be honest; apolitical citizens of all ages and classes suddenly seeing hope in a political party; Muslims rushing to join a party which doesn’t treat it as a vote bank – surely all this is cause for celebration by the media? No wonder a seasoned editor such as Vinod Mehta wrote: "A rare fragrant wind blows through our troubled land."
The media’s adversarial relationship with government stems from the perception that our rulers, but for the first two decades after Independence, have sought power only to enrich themselves and/or push their own communal agenda; that they have constantly exploited the majority of Indians who are poor. It is the media’s commitment to the mass of ordinary people that should make it automatically suspicious and critical of those in power. But if a party is seen to take power only after consulting its electorate; if being in government, it does not enrich itself and instead of exploiting its citizens, works closely with them, isn’t this democracy in practice, and shouldn’t the media be more tolerant, if not supportive, of such a government?
Of course, the media can’t overlook the AAP government’s wrong actions. Somnath Bharti’s and Kumar Vishwas’ racist, sexist and violent comments, have to be exposed and criticised. But did Bharti’s action against the alleged prostitution and drug rackets operating in his constituency merit the label of 'vigilantism'?
There’s no doubt that our society is overly fond of moral policing, and that youngsters who only want to do what their age demands bear the brunt of uncivilised vigilantism. But can such words apply to every attempt to regulate and restrict activities that affect most residents in an area, not just a few conservative, powerful elders? Mumbai’s English press and English-speaking intelligentsia saw an outcry last year against Inspector VasantDhobale who made it his mission to raid late night bars, clubs and discotheques and book them for staying open beyond the deadline. Residents where these establishments operated didn’t join the outcry. Indeed, like the residents of Delhi's Khirki Extension, they turned to the hockey-stick wielding Dhobale only after giving up on policemen who would tip off the offending establishments before every 'raid'.
All the coverage on the Somnath Bharti episode shows that residents who approached him have complained for long to every authority about the alleged drug and prostitution rackets operating in their area, without much action being taken. No doubt, some of these complaints have been coloured by prejudice against Blacks. But Blacks interviewed admit that some of them could be involved in drug running. While dismissing bigoted and conservative complaints against the "smell of their food" and the "short skirts" worn by the Blacks, should complaints about drugs and prostitution be dismissed only because the suspects are Black? Thank heavens residents interviewed were Muslim. Else the cry of "Hindu majoritarianism" would surely have been added to that of vigilantism and racism.
In October last, residents, fed up of waiting eight months for the police to act, themselves surrounded a guest house in Delhi’s Mahipalpur Extension Village, and came to blows with the men inside. Two Russian and two Indian girls were apprehended. The absence of a media outcry shows that Russians can be fair game for Indian vigilantes.
The media’s reports about accosting women inside a taxi; one woman’s allegation about being groped and assaulted – these must form the basis of a criminal complaint against Bharti and his followers. But why doesn’t the media show the entire video of the event, so that all accusations, including that of being forced to urinate in public, can be verified? Both Arvind Kejriwal and Yogendra Yadav have made this demand.
As for the "upright Delhi police standing up to a vigilante minister’s demands" and refusing to arrest without evidence and a warrant… such descriptions would be laughable were they not being made by media across the board. First of all, Delhi Police can arrest without warrant if they can justify their actions in writing to the court. Secondly, both in cases relating to narcotics and prostitution, no warrant is required. Thirdly, how long does it take to get a warrant and female cops? Fourth, what prevented the police from raiding the house and asking the inmates to come to the police station in the morning? Indian Express reported Bharti as saying that he had sent a decoy into the house pointed out by locals, and the decoy was told that entering it would cost him Rs 10,000 a night. Is that not evidence enough for the police to act?
Is the Delhi Police’s credibility so high that their sudden adherence to rules is to be taken seriously? A 20-minute-google search will show instances where Delhi’s residents have complained about being arrested without a warrant. These are residents who can complain. What about slum-dwellers who are routinely picked up from their homes on suspicion; Muslims who are whisked away without reasons being given and not even shown to be reported till days after? No media outcry follows such acts unless the victims create a noise. Indeed, the police’s routine illegal acts of brutality against the poor don’t even make news.
There is merit in the media’s allegations of anarchy and inconvenience caused by the AAP government’s street protest. But there is equal merit in Kejriwal’s argument that the poor deal with anarchy every day. What faith in the system will the family of that woman have, who was burnt alive by her in-laws, with the police refusing to act? What faith in the system would residents have who’ve had to live with a prostitution and drug racket in their area, running with the police's knowledge?
The Delhi High Court hearing last December’s rape case, asked for names of policemen patrolling the area through which the bus passed that night. Under normal circumstances, wouldn’t the media have asked for action against policemen deputed to patrol the area where the Danish woman was raped? Or against the cop who refused to act before the woman was burnt? How come neither the victim, nor her family, have been interviewed? Not as sensational copy as Africans?
Kejriwal’s decision to go on a street protest if the policemen concerned in these cases are not suspended is certainly radical, and fraught with danger, specially since he has asked for people to come from all over. Can he be sure his supporters won’t indulge in violence? What about agent provocateurs? He could have given the Home Minister a longer deadline. If nothing else, we could then have had our usual R Day parade in the presence of foreign dignitaries, with the roads sanitised of all ordinary citizens who make up the Republic. Imagine hordes of peaceful protesters undivided by religion and caste, out on the streets on Republic Day!
Perhaps Kejriwal should have tried to take an all-party delegation to the Home Minister, as suggested by the Congress’ Rita Bahuguna - to ask for the suspension of four cops! Would the BJP have joined him? Mumbaikars have experienced the unmeasurable clout enjoyed by policemen. Despite an indictment by a judicial commission, policemen accused of murdering innocent Muslims during the 92-93 riots only because they were Muslims, haven’t faced a day’s suspension, let alone a trial. Who’s to say that the findings of the judicial inquiry set up by Delhi’s Lieutenant Governor to investigate Kejriwal’s complaint won’t be similarly discarded by the ruling Congress at the Centre? The recommendations of a judicial commission are not binding even under the law. Shouldn’t the media be reminding people that policemen have been treated as above the law except when they are caught being corrupt?
Incidentally, can the media remember any occasion when a cop shouted at a minister not to cross his limits? It’s the media which has exposed the way the police licks the boots of criminal politicians – who may not even be ministers. Yet it shows no surprise that a member of the same force suddenly exercises his self-respect and cites rules, when ordered to do its duty by an upstart AAP minister.
Note: This column was written before the Aam Aadmi Party called off its agitation in Delhi.
"Mr Goswami, you are at your best tonight," AAP’s Prof Anand Kumar, at the receiving end of Times Now's inquisition, told Arnab on Friday (Jan 31) night, showing a patience rare on Arnab’s show. Not only did Goswami start the show by passing judgment on AAP as a "khap supporter", but without letting the professor complete his points, called in his battery of panellists to take on his "anteduvelian" views. The professor's opening submission – that khap panchayats are a traditional reality that exist despite the Constitution, and must be grappled with – made sense even to the lay viewer. So how come the erudite Mr Goswami didn't get it? An agenda at work? A similar agenda was seen in Sagarika Ghose’s Face the Nation on 'one month of AAP', when she tried, in vain, to get Capt Gopinath to bad-mouth AAP, having failed thoroughly to get the same result from Medha Patkar.
