By Patricia Mukhim
Having practised journalism for a fairly long time one hears the words ‘balanced,’ ‘objective’ ‘truth’ and some more being drummed into one’s eardrums by discerning readers. The other day I got a mouthful from a reader for a story on the Chokpot incident where this paper had first reported that a mother of four small kids was killed by bullets from an automatic rifle fired from the hands of a GNLA cadre right through her head because she allegedly resisted a molestation attempt. The news made national headlines. The GNLA was caught on the wrong foot and its propaganda machine worked over time. They denied that the cadre who shot at the woman (Josbina Sangma) belonged to the outfit and also denied that there was an attempt to rape/molest. It appears that the “molestation” angle was arrived at because the children of Josbina Sangma and her husband who watched from the crevices of their hut described her being roughed up before being gunned down. After the Nirbhaiya case of 2012 and following Justice JS Verma’s landmark recommendations, the Supreme Court has redefined the meaning of rape and molestation. Roughing up a woman is not something a man can do without consequences. But the traumatised family members of Josbina Sangma stopped short of the molestation charge while filing the FIR. The media then took a 360 degree turn cast aspersions on the police as if to hint that they had concocted the ‘attempted molestation’ story. This must have given Sohan Shira and his gang a morale boost. They have been acquitted by the media even before being put on trial.
The question that readers raise is whether the attempted molestation charge is more heinous than the brutality with which she was killed. Naturally they asked the editor, “Whose side are you on?” And one really has no answer to this. It’s a question that requires introspection and needs to be answered by every media person reporting from a conflict zone. Let me say that it is not easy to report from the battle fields of Garo Hills. Journalists’ lives are on the line. They are threatened for reporting stories which show the militants in a bad light. They are asked to carry the releases of militants verbatim as in Manipur. Newspapers are boycotted or burnt and editors threatened by one group or the other. In this scenario the truth often gets short shrift. But while writing a column one has the luxury of reflecting at leisure and perhaps ‘regretting the error’ as Craig Silverman in his seminal book by the same name, pushes the journalist to ponder upon. What Silverman says most graphically is that, “Media does not always get it right.”
The other issue on which our society is sharply divided on is the ban on coal mining by the National Green Tribunal. Those of us who believe we earn our livelihoods away from those dreaded hell holes and human graves of Jaintia Hills, West Khasi Hills and Garo Hills euphemistically called “coal mines” are indifferent to the ban or support it. Environmental protection groups welcome the ban calling it a progressive piece of ruling aimed at the restoration of nature. Academics (and her one can readily think of NEHU and MLCU, especially those from the Sociology or Social Work Departments) have been curiously silent as if this issue has no impact at all on their normal discourse. But the near defunct Hynniewtrep National Liberation Council (HNLC) has got a fresh lease of life from it. Their anti-NGT stance and a bandh call on the issue seems to have struck a chord with the people, judging from their response to the call for a public shut-down. The HNLC is a major stakeholder in coal mining because that is there catchment from where they earn their livelihood. The so-called ‘poor’ are a convenient scapegoat. Many others, after reading about the outcome of the ban after what appeared in the newspapers, have already taken sides. They have decided that the ban is bad because (a) it has made people sell off their kids (b) resulted in schools closing down (c) resulted in churches downing their shutters and tea stalls suddenly not making as much money as they used to.
Journalism in this state may be quite old (this newspaper turns 70 this year) but reportage is amateurish, overly sentimental, lacks objectivity at the best of times, and I will list down the reasons why I say this. When a journalist questions a woman who claims she has bought off a girl child from a former coal labourer, is that a solitary case or a trend. One swallow does not make a summer said Aristotle. And how right he is! Journalism is about a pattern of behaviour which becomes a matter of concern. A solitary case like this one looks like a laboured attempt to nail the NGT ban as a sort of central diktat. What about the larger evil of environmental pollution which has affected all of us in one way or the other? And the deaths of coal miners? Is that no crime? And who fights for all us of us if not the NGT?
The next questions requiring answer are about the report on closure of the schools and churches. As a journalist my secondary questions would be (a) Do the schools cater specially to the children of coal mine labourers? (b) Who runs those schools? (c) What do those who run the schools have to say about going out of business? (d) Since they obviously cater to the underprivileged are they not entitled to grants from the Government’s Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) under the Right to Education Act?
About the churches, it would be interesting to know (a) To which denomination do they belong to and the profile of their worshipper. (b) Is it because only the coal mine labourers frequent those churches that they are now empty? (d) In that case are most of the coal mine labourers Christians? (e) Are there temples or mosques nearby? Are they also deserted? The stories that have appeared need more evidence-based research to warrant the right kind of intervention. Now readers will ask why the stories have been passed for publication. Perhaps it is because we need to balance our over-the-top reportage on the NGT. And since the media does not always get it right perhaps the educated, discerning and media savvy public are expected to scrutinise the news and raise questions. Too often this does not happen. Issues are only discussed over gossip sessions at funerals and as asides at meetings. Hence we in the media get away with misdemeanours. We can only purge ourselves of our biases if we are told where we have gone wrong. We need an independent, constructive media oversight body in our state comprising people with an intrinsic flair for journalism, an understanding of the pressures and pulls that media practitioners experience and the heart to bring about a more evolved media in Meghalaya.
Let me come back to the caption of my piece today, “Life is about taking sides.” Indeed, every moment of every day we are called upon to take sides on situations that confront us. What side we take depends on the ethical, cultural and traditional values we are brought up with. Do we take sides with militants and their despicable acts merely because they are from the same stock as ourselves? Or because, we reason, they are like our brothers? Do we take sides with the coal mine owners on the coal mining issue because they and other beneficiaries are our own people? Are we taking sides because of a special interest or because our hearts bleed for those who we are told (no research yet) are starving as a result of the ban? Is the environment our enemy then? Is the environment now the “other” that we are used to demonising? These questions need to be discussed by those who care. Unfortunately we have talk shops organised on the redundant and academically over-stated “Look East Policy” but not on real issues confronting the people of Meghalaya.
Hat surprised me on June 9 were the number of calls asking about the outcome of the NGT ruling. Every caller wanted to know whether the ban has been revoked. At first, “Wow so people do care about the NGT ruling.” Only later did it dawn on me that the callers were more interested to know about whether there would be a bandh call by he HNLC based on the ruling. So there you are! We are mostly brutally unsentimental people who camouflage our self interest. Apparently we take sides on issues that affect us as individuals and evidently the environment can wait for now. Isn’t this sad because the environment really has few defenders? Yet we all suck up her air, drink her water, use her abundant resources! Personally I have taken sides with the environment and against coal mining. Also, I have always believed in dialogue and democratic methods against the gun culture.