Whether it is going to war or working towards peace or attending a diplomatic reception, Governments and political leaders must do what they believe is right; not what the media wants to hustle them into doing
In the midst of his second term in the White House, President George W Bush was asked how he coped with the weekly opinion polls that almost always seemed to give him poor ratings. His answer was thoughtful. He said he had been elected for a four-year time-frame. As such, leadership demanded taking decisions with a medium to long-term view, and with being true to one’s ideas and convictions.
A leader couldn’t and shouldn’t change his priorities week-by-week, depending on the opinion polls. He should guard against tailoring messaging and policies only to make a difference to the following week’s polling numbers. This would make the leader, and his Government, a prisoner of opinion pollsters and the quest for quick popularity. It would very likely take away from the capacity to deliver on the promises of one’s mandate.
All this is not to suggest that a leader — whether a President or a Prime Minister — should be uncommunicative or less than mindful of public opinion and sensitivities. Yet, there is a fine line between conveying what the Government is setting out to do and explaining and contextualising this for the public — and simply surrendering to the attendant noise.
India has no tradition of weekly opinion polls that tell a Prime Minister, at the end of seven days, where he stands vis-à-vis the people. Even if such polls were attempted in this country, chances are they would be dodgy in their methodology — serious polling is expensive business — and would not leave anybody the wiser.
Having said that, the danger of succumbing to the echo-chamber atmosphere of prime-time television shows and social media (particularly Twitter) praise or hostility can be very risky. Minister of State for External Affairs General VK Singh, the Government and indeed the country learnt this the hard way earlier this week, when the mess over the Pakistan National Day reception broke out.
General Singh’s tweets about “disgust” and “duty” after his short, 15-minute visit to the Pakistani High Commission in Delhi were bizarre and puzzling. They seemed to indicate he was unhappy about having to attend a ceremony hosted by the Pakistani High Commissioner. later, in a convoluted explanation, he stressed he was actually “disgusted” not at the act of having to attend the ceremony but by the media’s outrageous and over-the-top reaction. One is free to buy into General Singh’s explanation or to remain sceptical. The fact remains that in either case, he was provoked into a response by the media, particularly by the jangling jingoism of an individual news channel that was painting every Indian who attended the reception as some sort of traitor.
The television channel and the tin-pot warriors who appeared on it were doing themselves and their profession — or indeed the larger cause of communication and contributing to public and policy discourse — no favour. The Pakistan High Commission is one of some 150 embassies in Delhi. There is a national day or independence day celebration, or some such event, about every week. Friends of an embassy, business and media acquaintances, policy wonks, politicians and a few Government officials are routinely invited. The Union Government usually sends a representative — it could be a Minister or a civil servant, depending on the nature of the relationship with the country — to greet the host embassy on behalf of the Republic of India.
This is regular protocol. It occurs despite any other political or military squabbles. If there is a border stand-off in ladakh, it does not follow that Indian officials, Ministers and citizens are expected to or obliged to boycott the Chinese embassy’s National Day reception. If an Indian diplomat is arrested and handcuffed — unfairly — in New York on, say, June 25, India must protest and stand up for its rights and those of the diplomat. It does not follow that the July 4 reception at Roosevelt House will be boycotted.
In fact, this writer would love to see an assault on America and a call to ban all contact with the American embassy and diplomats being made by hyper-patriots on the television channel under discussion. Chances are everybody on screen would be very guarded, and very worried about the impact of loud and menacing words on future visa applications. It’s always easier to fulminate when the target is a soft one — and in the Indian media, probably the easiest thing to do is to attack Pakistan. Of course, about the only thing that is easier is to suggest unrealistic peace initiatives, but that is another story.
More seriously, the extent to which social media and the 24/7 khap panchayats masquerading as news channels can render day-to-day governance and even crisis-time diplomacy difficult is increasingly going to be dependent on the maturity and equanimity of the Government and the political leadership of the day.
On March 23, Pakistan’s National Day, a news channel showed pictures of Minister of State VK Singh and other Indian guests at the High Commission. It juxtaposed this with the lament and tears, completely understandable, of the widow of a soldier killed in recent days on the line of Control. The soldier’s grief-stricken widow was lashing out — as perhaps any of us would do in such a situation — at Pakistan, at the Government, at Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
This was not journalism. It was awful and sickening exploitation of the tears of a martyr’s family. In time, viewers will begin to see through it and recognise it for what it is: Cheap, coarse drama. Having said that, there will be occasions when it will leave the Government shaken. In the 1990s, the loC and the International Border with Pakistan were volatile. literally hundreds of Indian soldiers were killed. In the past decade, the border has been much more peaceful. It’s only in the preceding 12-odd months that sections of the Pakistani Army, desperate for a diversion from internal troubles, have resorted to bellicosity. Regrettably a few soldiers have been killed. Too many one would say, as even one soldier’s life is precious — but thankfully the casualty rate is well below that of the 1990s.
There is one difference though. In the 1990s, there was no 24/7 television. Today, prying cameras follow a martyr’s coffin to his village and bring the human tragedy of his family and friends, the ageing parents and young children he has left behind, to our living rooms. It can be wrenching. The emotions can be further provoked by TRP fiends on television and their warmonger props.
Governments have to come to terms with this, and have to learn how to cope with such challenges. Whether it is going to war or working towards peace, or attending a diplomatic reception, Governments and political leaders must do what they believe is right; not what the media madhouse wants to hustle them into doing.
malikashok@gmail.com