Sanjha Morcha

Good field reporting to counter studio hawks by Lt Gen GS Sihota (Retd)

The recent skirmish between Indian and Chinese troops was an opportunity for the government and the Indian Army to have war reporters on the spot after the hand-to-hand combat. It could have prevented TV anchors from becoming studio strategists, building imaginary scenarios and discussing them ad nauseam. These war journalists could have then presented a clear picture of the incident.

Good field reporting to counter studio hawks

Tectonic shift: During the 1999 Kargil War, the nation saw the grit and determination of the Indian soldier first-hand.

Lt Gen GS Sihota (Retd)

Former Director General, Military Operations

NICK Ut’s iconic photograph of a nine-year-old girl scorched by napalm bombing in Vietnam drew the attention of the world to the horrors of war. It also changed the public opinion in the United States leading to widespread protests. Seeing death and deprivation on a daily basis, the American public pressured the government to withdraw and accept defeat. Such is the relevance of war reporting.

A war correspondent is distinct from a regular journalist as he provides first-hand information from a conflict zone. It is considered the most dangerous form of journalism. The reporter goes into an affected area with adequate background knowledge and a determination to get a good story. Though unarmed, he/she is not short on courage and has the ability to take life-threatening risks. Despite strict restrictions, many are known to seek unauthorised entry, only to be intimidated, detained and even tortured. The beheading of Daniel Pearl by the Al Qaeda and James Foley by the ISIS is still fresh in our minds.

Marie Colvin was a fearless and gutsy woman, who lost one eye while covering the Sri Lankan civil war and later met her destiny along with her cameraman in Syria. Both times, these were unauthorised infiltrations. Then we know about Jeremy Bowen’s reports from Sarajevo which led to the exposure of war crimes and the trial of Bosnian General Ratko Mladic. Christina Lamb is another war reporter who has written many books on her experiences. She crossed the Hindukush into Afghanistan with the Mujahideen who were fighting the Russians. Later, she saw and wrote about the West which failed miserably because they could not understand the local dynamics of the country. Many journalists have lost lives in crossfire and to improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Afghanistan. In Yemen, reporters have been known to be tortured and even used as human shields.

The story of Indian war correspondents’ role in various conflicts has been somewhat different. Information about the raiders in 1948 came only through the refugees. PN Sharma was the first reporter who saw action from the air, took pictures, but crashlanded on a tree and was captured but later repatriated. His accounts were known only after the war when he published his book. Indian war reporters did not get as many opportunities as their foreign counterparts. Not to say that there has not been any change since then. During the 1971 war, there was a major shift. Foreign correspondents were flown to the action sites. A foreign journalist from the New York Times appeared on the scene accompanying Lt Gen Sagat Singh, GOC, 4 Corps. He introduced himself as ‘Harmitt’. His real identity was discovered when he let out the choicest Punjabi abuse on confronting machine gun fire. We appreciated his real value only when he flew out after the surrender and we saw foreign magazines full of photos and articles lauding the Indian Army’s role in the liberation of Bangladesh.

Unfortunately, during my stint in the Kashmir valley from September 1994 to April 1996, I did not meet any journalist who was willing to move out of his comfort zone. Most were housed in hotels in Srinagar from where they wrote biased accounts of the high handedness of the armed forces under militant pressure. Keen to know the security arrangements being made for yatris, they requested a briefing. The GOC, Victor Force (RR), asked them to assemble at Anantnag. Sadly, they were not prepared to go there without protection or walk to the cave before the Amarnath yatra as they thought that it was too big a risk to their lives. This is not to take away from the fact that today, young men and women are at the forefront, capturing the situation on their cameras and reporting live from the scene of action.

Many young reporters risked life and limb to reach LTTE positions facing the Indian Peace-Keeping Force (IPKF). There was the intrepid Anita Pratap and her photographer Sham Tekwani whose reportage and photographs brought home to the Indian public the questionable decision for India to interfere in Sri Lankan affairs. Since the Indian government controlled all information, acts of bravery and sacrifice remained unrecognised.

The 1999 Kargil War saw a major change. Though Barkha Dutt’s reporting from a bunker may have been termed as jingoism, it made an impact. The nation saw the grit and determination of the Indian soldier first-hand.

Every nation must exercise control over access to the battlefield to prevent sensitive information from leaking out, particularly during the period of actual engagement. Free access can have negative results. This was the bitter lesson from the Vietnam War. The US changed its policy thereafter and was able to create better opinion during the Iraq war.

Though modern technology has made the conflict zone accessible and visible from a distance, frontline reporting has a greater influence on the minds of the public than listening to studio reports. It can also influence domestic and international policies. Today, TV channels produce talk shows to enhance their TRPs where they quote reliable sources, unnamed sources and senior government sources, all of whom are unidentifiable. Such reports become questionable in their authenticity. The public gets confused. Social media divides people into pro-and anti-establishment, nationalist and anti-nationalist sections. Any official version starts raising doubts. On the other hand, reports from the foreign media, which has better resources and access to information from the opponent, get more prominence. This is unhealthy as it leads to rumour-mongering. Viewers are left to ‘believe it or not’.

This haze can only be cleared by allowing limited access to war reporters into the conflict zone. When will it be possible for us to fly them into such areas and let them develop a ground understanding of the border?

The recent skirmish between the Indian and Chinese troops at the Line of Actual Control (LAC) was an opportunity for the government and the Indian Army to have war reporters on the site after the grim hand-to-hand combat. It could have prevented TV anchors from becoming studio strategists, building imaginary scenarios and discussing them ad nauseam. The war journalists could have then presented a clear picture of the incident and the lie of the land.

War reportage is a force multiplier which can boost the image and might of the military and help in raising the morale of the Indian public.