Medium Term: The story of 26/11 is a story of foul-up after foul-up

Now that the anniversary of 26/11 is upon us, expect to hear the usual debates and discussions about the need to

urgently hang Ajmal Kasab, about problems involved in dealing with Pakistan, and the consistent terrorist threat that India faces.

 

   One debate you may not hear much about – because people have short memories – is the one about the role of the media during 26/11. And yet, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, the debate about how the media had behaved during those incidents, was all-pervasive. Important criticisms were made – sometimes in a reasonable manner and sometimes with anger and hatred – by people on Facebook, the web, in newspapers and in nearly every living room.

 

   The first of these issues was about human dignity. Did the media feel no shame in thrusting microphones into the faces of weeping relatives, in showing dead or mutilated bodies and in ambushing anguished victims of the attack to hurl the usual banalities at them: “Aap to kaisa lag raha hai?”

 

   It is a valid question. In the US and in many other Western societies, there is a code of conduct for coverage of such attacks. For instance, how many corpses did you see on TV of the victims of 9/11? More people died in that attack than died in 26/11. But the US media preserved their dignity and refused to carry the photos.

 

   And what of the so-called ‘jumpers’? If you watched 9/11 live on TV then you will know that several (scores? Hundreds? No one will say) people jumped from the Towers, preferring to die from the fall than be burnt alive. But US networks have refused to carry that footage again and even still images of the ‘jumpers’ are hard to find.

 

   As for the victims who were lucky enough to escape alive, they were certainly not pursued by mobs of TV crews shouting, “Just one bite, please.”

 

   Whichever way you look at it, there is no doubt that when it comes to human dignity, 26/11 was Indian TV’s real-life Peepli Live moment. In contrast to 9/11, 26/11 was a free-for-all with no guidelines and no rules. The media did what they wanted.

 

   Has that changed?

 

   I am not sure it has. There is still not enough attention paid to the dignity of those who are victims of terrorist attacks or whose deaths are captured on video.

 

   The second issue was about the tone of the coverage. Many people found it shrill, over-the-top and needlessly emotional to the point of hysteria. That criticism is entirely valid. A lot of the TV coverage of the attacks was rubbish.

 

   But I am not convinced that this is a serious enough issue to merit inclusion along with the lack of respect for human dignity. Yes, some channels were bad. Yes, some anchors made fools of themselves. And in terms of gauging the mood of their viewers, some networks miscalculated. At a time of threat, India wanted stability and reassurance. It did not want emotion and hysteria.

 

   But my view on tone of coverage is that viewers cannot dictate how news channels want to cover events. If you feel that a particular channel is too overwrought, then just use your remote. One of the advantages of the satellite TV revolution is that we have a plethora of news channels to choose from. If you don’t like the way that somebody is covering a story, you are under no obligation to watch him or her.

 

   It is the third issue that is really the crucial one. The government has often suggested directly and indirectly that the news channels actually helped the terrorists by revealing information that should have been kept secret.

 

   Two instances are usually provided to support this claim. The first is a now-notorious report from outside the Taj Mahal Hotel where a reporter revealed that several guests had taken refuge in the Chambers. We know now that the handlers of the terrorists inside the Taj were watching Indian TV. They saw the report and asked the terrorists to rush to the Chambers.

 

   By some coincidence, the terrorists reached the Chambers just as guests were being evacuated through the kitchen. The terrorists opened fire, scuppering the evacuation and killing several people including Taj chefs who showed a remarkable willingness to put their lives at risk to protect their guests.

 

   If that TV report had not been telecast, would lives have been saved?

 

   In a word: yes.

 

   The second instance relates to the NSG’s assault on Nariman House. This was supposed to be a surprise commando operation. But because over 100 cameras were trained on Nariman House, it was telecast live, from every possible angle, all around the world. The NSG says that the telecast tipped off the terrorists and that one of its men was killed as a consequence.

 

"The sad truth is that if 26/11 happened again this year, the government would still screw up just as spectacularly as it did when the original attacks occurred."

   I am less convinced about this incident. Recordings of the conversations between the terrorists and their handlers suggest that the handlers were being kept informed of developments in the area by spies in the neighbourhood. These spies had already told them about the approaching helicopter and the imminent assault. Moreover, though the government is reluctant to acknowledge this, some TV channels (NDTV, for example) did not show the commando assault live but delayed the telecast so that the NSG preserved the element of surprise.

 

   Even so, I am willing to concede the general point that TV channels were so keen on getting good shots of the incidents and on revealing information that they did not pay enough attention to security considerations.

 

   But here’s my point: whose fault is that?

 

   I do not dispute that some channels acted irresponsibly. But when you speak of TV channels, you speak of scores of individual operations, each of whom had put different people into the field. Each reporter and each producer made his or her own split-second judgement as events unfolded.

 

   Clearly, many of these judgements were wrong. But the mistakes did not arise from a desire to help the terrorists. They came from inexperience, over-enthusiasm and in many cases, plain stupidity

 

   But if TV news is not a monolith but an animal with many heads, each with its own brain, then what of the Government of India? Surely, at times of grave national crisis, the government should act as one?

 

   The most shocking aspect of media coverage of 26/11 is not that the media were often irresponsible or behaved with a lack of respect for human dignity. It is how badly the government screwed up.

 

   The story of 26/11 is a story of foul-up after foul-up: the government ignored intelligence reports that the terrorists were on their way; the Bombay Police fought among themselves, sacrificing their own best officers while leaving the city unprotected; and even the NSG took three days to win a battle that pitched several hundred well-trained commandoes against four young fidayeen within an enclosed space.

 

   But the foul-ups, when it comes to the government’s handling of the media, are even more spectacular. We know now that the government was listening to phone conversations between the terrorists and their handlers. It knew, therefore, that the handlers were watching TV and passing on information.

 

   Why then, did nobody in the government of India stop the TV channels from revealing information? Why were no news black-outs imposed? It would have taken just one directive from the I&B ministry to prevent the Nariman House attack from being telecast live. And yet, nobody said anything.

 

   Instead, various branches of the government courted the media by speaking in many voices. The Indian Army functioned like a unguided missile. On the very first day, an officer told a TV channel that he had heard communications between terrorists and their handlers and could tell from their accents that they were Pakistani Punjabis. At this stage, the intelligence agencies were trying hard not to reveal that they were intercepting communications, so this was a major gaffe.

 

   Later, the army, which had no role in the Taj operation, took to offering unnecessary and inaccurate information to TV channels. When the NSG commandoes were tracking down three terrorists (one had already been killed) inside the Taj, an army general confidently told TV reporters, “There is only one terrorist inside and he is wounded. We have trapped him and it will be over soon.”

 

   And what of the navy? Late on the night of 26/11, when it was clear that the NSG would not reach in time (which in itself is another scandal) the Maharashtra government asked the navy for its commandoes. These commandoes went into the Taj, rescued a few people who were still trapped within the new wing of the hotel and left without engaging the terrorists, who were holed up in the old wing.

 

   At the time, everyone was grateful for the navy’s help. At least somebody had shown the guts to enter the hotel and to rescue some executives and guests (the Bombay Police were still cowering outside).

 

   But then, the Navy went on to behave disgracefully. While the NSG was still fighting the terrorists inside the Taj, the Navy’s commandoes held a bizarre televised press conference. To protect their identities (from whom? Any Somali pirates who might be watching?) they wore handkerchiefs over their faces and held forth about their role in fighting the terrorists. Not only was this shameful desire to court publicity reprehensible but much of the information they provided was also wrong and risked compromising an on-going operation.

 

   There are many other such instances. Essentially, the government of India failed during 26/11. And when it came to controlling the flow of information, it failed even more spectacularly.

 

   None of this is to forgive the mistakes made by the media. And two things still worry me. First, I have seen no evidence that the media have learnt from their mistakes. And as for that dysfunctional monolith that is the Government of India, the sad truth is that if 26/11 happened again this year, the government would still screw up just as spectacularly as it did when the original attacks occurred.

 

   Those who forget the lessons of history are condemned to repeat their mistakes.