Comment: Prickly state wants unquestioning loyalty

It is not easy being a journalist these days. A journalist is no longer expected to question, to interrogate or to disagree.

The new mantra is that a journalist must wear the national flag on his sleeve, and uncritically accept what the government of the day has to say.

Call it the post-September 11 syndrome, but the bottomline is that any mediaperson who casts a sceptical gaze at official versions of events is immediately branded as anti-national. It happened in Gujarat when journalists who refused to accept chief minister Narendra Modi's definition of "normalcy" were immediately straitjacketed as pseudo-secular, anti-national Pakistani agents.

It had happened during the December 13 attack on parliament as well. Anyone who might have murmured about security lapses and questioned the investigating process was quickly asked to shut up or else.

The latest instance of a prickly state which cannot stomach even the slightest criticism has been provided by the "encounter" that took place in the heart of the national capital in which two men, alleged to be terrorists, were killed by the police in the basement of the upmarket Ansal shopping mall on the eve of Diwali.

For the last few days, anyone who has questioned the police version of what exactly transpired that Sunday night has been described, in the words of former law minister and BJP spokesperson Arun Jaitley, as "the overground face of the underground".

The implication of this statement is, much like George Bush after September 11: either you are with us or with them. In other words, runs the argument, there is no space in the global war against terror to question the political authority of the day.

So, if the state machinery, in this case the Delhi police, tells you that two terrorists armed with AK-56s and other dangerous weapons were about to spread mayhem in a shopping mall, then you must in complete faith accept their version. If you don't, then you are not just stepping out of line, but also effectively becoming a spokesperson for the enemy.

It's a dangerous argument, especially in a society that claims to respect individual freedoms, human rights and the rule of law. What makes it even more worrisome is that it is no longer just a debate confined to a few insurgency-affected pockets of the country, but a live issue across the nation which mirrors a shift in public opinion as well.

Ever since the Pakistani proxy war began to move from Kashmir to the hinterland and target innocent civilians, there has been a growing sense of unease and anger among large sections of the population who feel that the Indian state has been much too soft in tackling terrorism.

The post-Akshardham national mood virtually gives the security forces a licence to kill, based on a philosophy that the means do not matter, only the final result does.We had a panel discussion on an audience-based television show the other night on the Ansal shootout and its aftermath.

Every time Jaitley, who was one of the participants on the show angrily referred to human rights activists speaking the language of the terrorists, he was loudly cheered by the audience, mostly middle-class Delhiites, any of whom could have been in Ansal Plaza that night. "A jaw for a tooth," said the former minister to prolonged clapping.

"Look at the bigger picture, we are fighting a quasi-war," said a police officer, to even more applause. A lady in the audience appeared to sum up the mood: "I don't care whether the police stage-manages an encounter or not, so long as terrorists are killed."

Losing out in this cacophony of voices was the human rights activist on the panel, who while quoting chapter and verse from various UN and human rights commission resolutions on dealing with terrorism, was unable to strike a chord with the audience.

At one level, the human rights wallahs are responsible for their own loneliness. Many of them have tended to survive and even thrive in the more comfortable environs of the seminar circuit rather than be involved more directly in the heat and dust of public life.

The Jayaprakash Narayan type of leaders who made human rights a part of their larger political agenda are few and far between. There has also been a tendency to rely on second hand information and extraneous sources instead of building a case on hard facts and evidence that will stand up to scrutiny in a court of law.

The Ansal case is a classic instance of a propensity to jump the gun with the initial complaint based on the testimony of a "witness" whose own credentials are highly suspect. And yet, there is a larger point that the human rights activists are making which is unfortunately being ignored in the name-calling and conspiracy theories.

Quite simply, the demand for greater transparency in procedures and accountability on the part of the men in uniform is a completely legitimate one, and is critical to distinguishing a functioning democracy from a banana republic.

To accuse the sceptics who raise these issues as being Pakistani agents is to reveal a mindset that is inherently anti-democratic. If there is one thing that still sets Indian democracy apart, it is the rule of law based on accountability and proper investigating procedures.

Ensuring that these are followed in all instances is hardly an "anti-national" demand but instead would only make India an even stronger nation.

What, for example, if it turns out that a person killed in an encounter was an innocent bystander? Is the act to be excused because the security forces, after all, are waging a larger battle against terrorism?

Two years ago, five people were killed in a Kashmir village allegedly because they were the "terrorists" responsible for the Chattisinghpura massacre. After questions were raised over the encounter, it gradually emerged that the DNA tests had been fudged, the encounter had been stage-managed and the five men who were killed were civilians who had nothing to do with the massacre.

Today, while the real terrorists who were responsible for the incident are probably safely tucked away in some resthouse, no action has been taken against the securitymen responsible for the killings.

To raise questions then over Chattisinghpura-like incidents is not to engage in police-bashing or demoralise security forces. No one can underestimate the task faced by the security forces in dealing with men who treat human life with utter impunity.

But the size of the task itself demands greater responsibility. It also requires an understanding of a basic fact that every time a journalist raises his hand, he isn't committing a seditious act, but merely trying to do the best job possible in difficult circumstances.

The writer is political editor, New Delhi Television