Why it's important for media to be careful with Army's image
Recently, senior Congress politician Sandeep Dikshit had compared India’s serving army chief to a “sadak ka goonda”. It was a shocking statement, mostly because it was the first time someone used such derogatory remarks against the serving Army chief.
Naturally, everyone criticised the deplorable comment. This comment comes in the backdrop of the Army chief calling a “spade a spade” with respect to terrorism in Kashmir. There has been some criticism about an Army major tying a Kashmiri man to a jeep to use him as a human shield; the same officer was then awarded the Army chief’s commendation.
Unique
This appears to be a unique case, where an Army major fighting insurgency had successfully avoided any loss of life or property but was still criticised for his actions. It was the perfect handling of a situation, where no religious or communal sentiments were hurt.
Yet, the doer seems to have got maximum abuse from certain quarters of the society. Currently, the Indian armed forces are engaged in fighting an asymmetric warfare and it is increasingly becoming clear that various asymmetric attacks require asymmetric responses.
Particularly, in the Kashmir Valley, the soldiers are required to take split-second decisions depending on the ground situation, and at the same time ensure that collateral damage is avoided. In future too the forces should not discard the option of human shield. For all these years, it has been observed that non-state actors do not take the political signalling very seriously.
Hence, there is no harm if the military leadership speaks loud and clear. Everyone understands that Indian military establishment means business and, therefore, their messaging could have the desired impact.
Unfortunately, today some political activists, NGOs, and human rights groups are found challenging certain actions of the military without understating the actual problem. However, in a democracy, this cannot be avoided. Also, gone are the days when military used to be stationed only in barracks and cantonments. Owing to the security situation today, military presence in some regions is increasing.
Owing to the media, certain military actions get undue publicity. Simultaneously, the interaction of the defence community (serving and retired of all ranks) with other members of the society is found increasing significantly owing to various reasons. Because of social media (remember the viral video of the Indian Army and the BSF jawan) and open debates like sahayak system and the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), various military issues are now becoming close to public scrutiny.
Naturally, with increasing exposure to defence matters, the understanding of the civilian community is growing and they have started forming their independent opinions, good or bad. In a democracy, this is bound to happen and the defence fraternity should be ready to accept some criticism (just or unjust). Likewise, now the time has come for the community to do some soul-searching too.
Currently, those in uniform are doing exactly what is required. They are speaking less and concentrating on their job. They are also doing timely signalling, like giving a chief’s commendation to the officer accused of using a local as a human shield. This one action has sent out a signal to many. But, how about the veteran community?
Since they can’t be a part of action anymore, some of them have converted themselves as a shouting brigade (on various media and social platforms). Now, the question is: “Are they doing service or disservice to the larger national cause?” This is creating confusion in the minds of citizens.
Complexities
Is the increased acquaintance of the defence community with various other sections of society increasing complexities? Is over-familiarity breeding contempt? Today, the media creates images and it’s interested in viewership. It finds more viewership by warmongering and debating hawkish views.
A few years back, there used to be a talk in the armed forces about how effectively the media could be “managed” (the word, media always detested) for the purposes of military requirements (read information warfare).
But, it appears that today, the electronic media is “managing” and using various defence issues to its advantage. One classic case is the One Rank One Pension (OROP) issue. The media projected the issue till there was “story” value in it. Subsequently, no media platform was available for the defence community to examine and debate the shortfalls of the provision of revising such pensions after every five years.
Image
Also, it is important to appreciate that the image of the services is being damaged owing to few bad apples amongst themselves. There have been cases of army officers being involved in poaching, hunting and weapons rackets, et al. These days, retired offers involve themselves in various community-related agitations demanding quotas and other such things. Even retired military chiefs are found fighting elections with some even forfeiting their security deposit. This leads to a
This leads to a loss of reputation in the society as a whole and also somewhat contributes to the biased view about the forces. At present, society is changing and social media is making people more visible and, at times, their voice gets more currency. In addition, images of institutions and individuals are increasingly based on market relevance. The recent unjust criticism of the Army chief is a signal for the times to come. Yet, the forces can’t be above criticism in a democratic setup.
In every case of criticism of the forces, it would be important to reflect logically and ask, “Is there any merit in the case?” And if there isn’t, the issue should not be pursued just because someone has criticised the armed forces.
(Courtesy of Mail Today.)