Patricia Mukhim
The Shillong Times has been barred from circulation in West Khasi Hills district of Meghalaya since Saturday last because of an article by this writer mentioning that the youth involved in the current stone pelting at Motphran were mostly from West Khasi Hills. This was the Government’s view after the preliminary investigations of those arrested. There was no contestation about the Government report, hence one is perplexed that it should agitate the people of West Khasi Hills when this is cited in an article. This writer spoke of the economic backwardness of the district, not of the people, which was why the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) project launched its poverty alleviation programme there in 1999 and the programme continues now under the NEC.
In a democracy, if certain individuals or groups have grievances about certain news reports or articles in a particular newspaper/newspapers, the right response is to send a rejoinder to correct the perception. Burning of newspapers is undemocratic and ultra-vires as it violates Article 19 (1) (a) of the Indian Constitution.
A free and open press is what sustains democracy. If the media is accused of being biased then so is every history book we have read. It’s our job to have the critical thinking skills and historical context to notice, engage, and respond. That’s what an educated citizenry does in a democracy. That’s why freedom of the press and free speech go together.
Coming back to the recent unfortunate incident of May 31 that could have escalated into an ethnic conflict, let us admit that such flare-ups are not new to Meghalaya; hence the State should have a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of first response which should involve the Dorbar Shnong and the general citizenry. This implies a close-knit, working relationship between the district administration and police, the Dorbar Shnong and the community of residents in the respective localities. The fact that the Dorbar Shnong operates in isolation and is not recognized as urban/rural local administrative bodies is problematic. The Government needs the Dorbar Shnong to maintain order and discipline in localities apart from the developmental work they undertake. The Dorbars also know exactly who the potential trouble makers in their localities are. Hence they are best placed to bring order amid chaos.
When a Motphran type of incident occurs the first response is to quell rumours by activating the public address systems. Rumours were the cause of conflict even in the past when social media was not in currency. When people don’t know what is happening they tend to panic and to believe the worst. That’s human nature. Getting to work to prevent “fake news” from taking wings on social media is today a critical response mechanism. The quick arrests made by Assam Police of the criminals responsible for spreading fake news on social media about child lifters in the area which ultimately led to the gruesome lynching of two artistes in the States’s Karbi Anglong district is a lesson that needs to be imbibed by Meghalaya Police.
The recent incident has also triggered some academics from local colleges to write articles to various news portals based on their perceptions of the incident. Sadly, one saw no academic rigour or objectivity in any of the writings except a ‘confirmation bias’ which is what most research suffers from. Scholars don’t approach a problem with pre-conceived notions/assumptions and draw conclusions based on those. One would expect scholars to speak to the Mazhabi Sikh community as well, to be able to draw correct conclusions about what really happened. Scholarship demands a completely non-partisan, distanced approach so that one does not identify with one group while distancing oneself from the other.
There are problems in Khasi society today that we have put the lid on for the time being. But it is simmering and its manifests in acts of stone pelting. There is unresolved anger in the youth. What is causing that anger? One expects scholars to interrogate whether the Khasi society today is still cohesive, homogenous and classless; whether the Society is inclusive and whether all members of the community own adequate land for a homestead and for farming. If not, why not? Where is the community owned land? Why is the thorny question of landlessness in rural Meghalaya such a neglected topic of research? Who is the academia defending or trying to defend? We all know that land is alienated everyday in rural Meghalaya, not to non-Khasis but to the tribal elite that can afford to invest in real estate which can later be alienated for industrial purposes, where the rural Meghalayan will be just a labourer earning a measly daily wage. Does anyone care to dig deeper into this malaise? I wonder why the plethora of organisations with grand sounding acronyms don’t engage with this crucial issue. Whose interests are they protecting and why?
Also questions you expect scholars to answer are: (a) Are all citizens equal in Meghalaya? (b) Are some more equal than others? (c) Is the “community” still standing for one another and for the homeless? We may live in denial but the slip is showing.
It’s interesting too that we refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room but are quick to converge around a common enemy. Indeed, that common enemy is the most solidifying thing that welds the people into an aggrieved mass that can vent out its past perceived grievances. Again, it is the duty of social and political scientists to ferret out these societal realities with evidence. That is the role of a liberal thinker which we expect academics should be. The value of the liberal in any democracy is not that he is logical but that he is inquisitive. The independent liberal whether walking alone or in a pack is a critical ingredient of a republic. Alas! These days it is fashionable to belittle the thought in the individual and to glorify the thought in the crowd.
An editorial in The New York Times dated February 26, 1949, says, “To pursue truth one should not be too deeply entrenched in any hole. It is best to have strong curiosity and weak affiliations.” When scholars are affiliated to their social class and have group loyalties, their scholarship suffers and free thinking is arrested.
Coming to the allegation that this newspaper published “fake news’ on June 1, 2018, I would like to ask if any of those making the allegations were present at the scene of the skirmish or did they listen to hearsay? In the book ‘Journalism and Truth: Strange Bedfellows’, noted scholar, Tom Goldstein says the complaint from readers is all too common: “I know something about that, and the news got it wrong.” Goldstein avers that while other disciplines have clear protocols for gathering evidence and searching for truth, journalism has some curious conventions that may actually work against such a goal since journalists have to rely on the views of witnesses who cannot be credited to be devoid of their own prejudices. While the fact checking needs to be as accurate as possible, subjectivity does creep in even in the best of newspapers.
Paul Dughi writing on public perception of the truth says, “Not only do we get anger when we report something that’s wrong (and we should), but we often get criticized for NOT reporting things — whether they are true or not. I would ask those who point fingers at us these questions: Were you there when the incident happened? Did anyone who objected to the word “eve teasing” speak to the girls concerned? Did the girls from that colony react without provocation? What if it was the other way round? Our only fault was that we could not get the views of the driver of the SPTS despite trying our best, because of the melee that ensued. The next option was to get the views from the mob and that is not journalism. The next day we clarified matters and interviewed Mr Marbaniang the driver to get his side of the story.
Making sure fake news isn’t reported sometimes means not allowing items to creep in that a majority of people think are true, even if they are not. Truth is not always easy to find. Often, we don’t know the truth. The real truth is that often the answer is in shades of gray and there may not be agreement. But people want definitive answers. In journalism it’s not always a simple ‘yes-it-is’ or ‘no-it-isn’t.’ And sometimes, we just don’t know. Reporters work on tight deadlines and don’t always have enough time to check every statement especially if it involves a question that’s not easily resolved through a quick Google search.
Our endeavour has been to tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so. But even if we have failed somewhere, a conscientious reader will help us with his/her version in a letter or article. That is civility.