But Minority Affairs Minister AR Antulay has entered a completely different league by repeating exactly what has been the talking point of Pakistan's conspiracy theorists:
“There is more than what meet the eyes... Karkare was investigating some cases in which non-Muslims were involved,” he said. The minister then went on to explain why he is not in agreement with the view that Karkare was killed by terrorists. “Superficially speaking, they (terrorists) had no reason to kill Karkare. Whether he (Karkare) was victim of terrorism or terrorism plus something. I do not know,” he said.[link]
Predictably, this has set the cat among the pigeons with the opposition demanding his head. The political capital that can be made out of this is imaginable, so it's easy to understand what is driving the BJP to ask for his resignation. But what is disheartening is that most common people are also confining themselves to just asking for Antulay to be sacked or disciplined.
They are simply not seeing the real problem. The real problem, the real question we need to be asking is, what authority does the Minister for Minority Affairs have to speak on a terror attack while the investigations are going on? What authority does this Minister have to comment on a situation in which we are on a diplomatic offensive with Pakistan? This would hardly have been acceptable from a newbie politician, but Antulay is a veteran and should have known when not to comment. What made him and Lalu believe they had the right to comment on this issue?
This is not, I believe, a problem with the people alone. It is a problem with the process. This is the first thing I felt when I heard of Antulay's comments but couldn't put a finger on exactly where the problem in the process lay. Until yesterday, when I watched Times Now.
Apparently, Lalu Yadav had just arrived at Parliament and as usual, his car was beseiged by journos asking him for his comments on Antulay. Lalu gave no answer and silently walked into the building. The journos were gushing, in that now-commonplace high-pitched Sunny Deol-esque shouting voice, that it was very uncharacteristic of Lalu to do so. If true, then it would be one of the few rare occassions that Lalu kept mum when he should have.
A few moments later, there appeared footage of Foreign Minister Pranabda, again apparently in front of a car, with cameras thrust in his face. Now Pranabda in my opinion, is a poor choice for a Foreign Minister, a job that is as much PR as it is strategy. These days he looks positively uncomfortable, if not scared, when facing the camera. This isn't helped least by his relatively short height, which only increases the impression of his discomfort.
But coming back, that's when it hit me. It is perhaps these comments at the car which are the reason why Antulay and co believe entitled to comment on issues like 26/11.
Why? To answer that, let's go back to Times Now's reaction at Lalu's silence. The reporter kept asking why Lalu remained silent. Not once did it dawn on him or the studio anchor that the correct question should have been, why shouldn't Lalu have remained silent? Lalu is not the PM or the HM, he is not responsible for the investigation into the terror attacks or Karkare's death, so why should he comment upon another Minister's statements anyway?
The rot begins at the reporters. Car conferences are easy - you need to ambush a neta for barely 15 seconds before he disappears into the building. Once you do that you have footage that can be played on endless loop (Times Now displayed Lalu's silence thrice as I watched). They play on the egotistical nature of our netas who cannot resist the temptation of seeing themselves on TV and making statements.
The trouble is that car conferences are not a mode of information dissemination. Think about it, how measured a response can be given at a car conference within those 15 seconds? None, of course. All that can be done at a car conference is a sound-bite. Which is good for the TRPs but is utterly useless when it comes to information dissemination.
If the rot begins at the reporters, it continues with the politicians. Now that they have been brought up on a diet of car conferences where any and every Minister can be ambushed at his car, Ministers start making comments about any and every issue, whether under their purview or not.
The worst part of all this is that there is no accountability involved from the Minister's end. Unlike a formal press conference which is called by the relevant Ministry and demands accountability, a car conference is ad-hoc, it is done not at the Minister's choice but at the whims of the media. This would be a fine thing if the media were mature enough to ask the right people, but they aren't. What they want is sound-bites and the car conference is a medium which serves only that purpose.
The same attitude of no accountability carries on into the Parliament. Antulay gave his unsubstantiated and unstudied opinions on a subject he does not handle and had no business to be handling, because this culture of asking a Minister his view on any and every issue encourages it. The car interview encourages this mindset and this culture, and it encourages the sound-bite. When this happens, Ministers like Antulay want their share of publicity, so they say any and everything that comes to their mind. Obviously there are bound to be conflicting signals coming from the govt.
On the other hand, real information dissemination like a press conference called by a Ministry is rarer, and lesser covered in the media. If you get it, you mostly get snatches - again, soundbites. A press conference is where a detailed, and most importantly "official" (which means there is some accountability to go with it) response is given. Why are these not covered much? One, because car interviews are easier to get (you don't need to sit through a conference) and because the chances of getting juicy stuff (would Antulay be invited to press conference by the Home Ministry?) reduce. Unfortunately, the atmosphere of informality surrounding them directly encourages loose comments. It looks like the same culture is being carried over into the Parliament.
Times Now gleefully showed the number of embarrassing U-turns Zardari took, but Antulay might just have given India's answer to that.
As I said, this is a problem of the process, not of the people. Loose comments will continue to be made as long as the process is screwed up.
So how do you fix the process? One, for every major security issue, within hours if not minutes, the govt must decide which department(s) are authorised to comment on the issue in the media. In this case, it would be the Foreign, Home and PMO. Each of these could further subdivide which aspects each would handle. There are bound to be internal disagreements with other departments, but these should be brought out at the Cabinet, especially when heated negotiations with Pakistan are involved. There had better be an extremely good reason for them to air their differences in public. Two, innuendo by Ministers on ongoing investigations by other departments must be prohibited. What Antulay said, or Lalu's comment about the "suspicious" role of the opposition were innuendos, and they smack of utter irresponsbility and unaccountability. Three, car conferences need to be done away with. They serve absolutely no purpose other than TRPs. They do not spread information. They are more sound than light. To do away with them is not difficult - all Ministers need to do is keep quiet from the car to the building and ignore the reporters' questions, unless they refer to their own departments or are personal questions, in which case it is their choice. If information needs to be spread, let it be done by the concerned relevant departments at a press conference where they give it with reliability and most important, accountability.
This might have an additional positive side effect. Pranabda communicating exclusively through a press conference might look far less uncomfortable and initimidated than when he has a hundred mikes staring him in the face.
No comments:
Post a Comment