Firing at Chief Minister's chopper, bomb blasts, helipad attacked, yet it won't be called Terrorism!

It was the biggest news of the day. A chief minister was fired at, just when he was about to get out of the chopper.

Armed terrorists began firing at the helipad. Bombs were also set off the same day in the State.

Still, did you watch the news as lead on TV channels. Was it given due importance?

"Suspected militants opened gunfire as he was getting out of helicopter", said this report, quoting CID officials. There were four ministers and two MLAs too in the helicopter. Manipur CM's helicopter ambushed, reports Scroll.

"A jawan of the Manipur Rifles was injured in the firing which took place when the chief minister stepped out of the helicopter and was being greeted by government officials", it further said.

The audacity of the attackers could be gauged from the fact that security was already beefed up in Ukhrul as CM was to reach there to inaugurate the developmental projects.

The militants attacked the helipad where CM Okram Ibobi Singh's chopper was scheduled to land in Ukhrul in Manipur, reported International Business Times (IBT).

The newspaper reported that several policemen were hurt in firing between militants and security forces, and the CM escaped unhurt. India Reserve Battalion jawans were also injured in IED blasts elsewhere in the State, on the same day.

In reports, words like 'unidentified gunmen' or 'militants' were used. Nowhere the word terror was found--neither on websites of major newspaper, nor on TV channels which carried these reports.

How headlines were sanitized [no use of word 'Terrorist']:

1. Helipad attacked after Manipur CM’s chopper takes off.

2. Manipur CM escapes ambush. 

3. CM Okram Ibobi escapes unhurt as militants open fire.

[See link, link and link]

NSCN(IM) is a banned outfit, just like other outfits which can't operate under Indian law.

However, its cadre is mostly called 'gunman', 'rebel', 'shooter' or 'outlaw', but not 'terrorist'. This is the same with ULFA, Bodo and Maoists too. The attacks may be brazen but they never fall in 'Terrorism' criterion in Indian media. 

When media terms a Terrorist attack as 'ambush' : Criterion for terming a violent attack as terrorism, another more severe attack as 'ambush'

When 20 armymen were killed in attack by banned 'militant' groups in Manipur, the TV channels and newspapers termed it as 'ambush'.

Despite the fact that it was the worst attack on army in decades, the word terror wasn't used.

In fact, many reports didn't mention early in their reports, that who was behind the attack.

1. The headlines and sub-headlines were just about 'armymen killed', not about those who committed the act.

2. No one showed photos of wanted NSCN-KCP-KYKL chiefs or security experts talking about their modules or other past crimes by them.

3. For our media, which is quite sensitive about army, this attack was not enough to cause any OUTRAGE.

No live reports, no flash and no special panel discussions. The next morning, newspapers also carried the story just like a routine report, sans any emotion or information about the 'killers'.

4. In follow-up stories in many papers, words like 'rebel' were used, not terrorist or militant. So what exactly is terror? Does the identity of the 'shooter' or' attackers' lead to sudden decision that word like 'Terrorist' would not be used and it would be termed as 'Ambush'. How this happens, who's behind it?

5. After all in incidents, when there is no casualty and a person who may not belong to any banned group and is killed in an encounter by police, he is quickly termed terrorist, just for carrying a gun or firing a bullet. Is it because the person has a different name!

6. Let's be straight, it is about having a Muslim name. So how does it occur? Knowingly or Unknowingly. No norms or internal system to decide. Or it is so deeply engrained in minds, that as soon as the report comes or story develops, the differentiation of words is there.

7. Any attack, anywhere [not just in North East, Chhattisgarh or any other part of the country by any banned outfit, howsoever dreaded or big in magnitude, will never be termed Terror attack unless the suspect is a Muslim.

8. If a Muslim is killed in encounter and police says that he was trying to fire, he is termed 'TERRORIST', but those who belong to banned militant-terror groups, and commit such gruesome killings, aren't termed even extremists or radicals.

9. By use of words like 'ambush', the severity of the incident is diluted and the image continues to be reinforced that Terrorist can only be a CERTAIN PERSON, belonging to a certain group. Isn't it absolutely unfair and unjustified.

10. Religious is a factor. There is a clear bias. Let's face it. A non-Muslim can commit crime of any magnitude but won't be termed as Terrorist. And a Muslim can always be implicated and termed Terrorist even if he hasn't commit any violent act.

If youths who shot a Delhi cop who had raided their home in Batla House locality were termed terrorists by all, then why those who killed 20 armymen NOT called terrorist? Define terrorism or accept your biases and double standards. Accept, that you are not naive, but doing it purposely to defame Muslims. That it's Islamophobia--crime to malign an entire religion.

11. The result is that in a country where Armyman is treated in utmost respect and injury or casualty can lead to media affecting relations with other countries, the terrorist attacks like in Manipur, are simply treated as 'just an unfortunate happening' and is forgotten.

12. On the contrary, individuals can be framed, termed 'Terrorist' without even firing a bullet, and made to rot in jails for the rest of their lives, because if someone is termed Terrorist, everyone parrots the line, he is branded and he is destroyed--from lawmakers to courts, he is seen as one.

So does anyone has answer that why such unfair attitude in media persists.

Aren't Muslims justified in feeling that they are being targeted and wrongly portrayed. Why it continues? Is it because there is no strong voice raised till now by Muslim leaders, politicians, thinkers and community jointly? 

Media and national security: How Indian media views Burdwan, Manipur blasts differently

This post once again brings to fore the serious issue that how our media is now viewing incidents of similar nature, differently, and is creating scare in one situation while it completely ignores the other.

For weeks, in fact, two months, everyone on the national security beat in TV channels and newspapers, seem to be talking about Burdwan blast in West Bengal. 

It is being described as one of the biggest issues as far as law-and-order is concerned. Day after day, we see reports about it, the concerns expressed in this regard.

Top officials go to Burdwan [now Bardhaman], politicians take up the issue and media has made it a national security issue of such magnitude, which we haven't seen in the last  year or so. 

It's fine because that's the job of investigative agencies to look into anti-national activities. We all agree that such disruptive elements [like those involved in Burdwan blast] should be chased, caught and completely crushed. 


However, it is not that fanatic elements haven't died while making IEDs or bombs before in the country. From Bajrang Dal activists in Kanpur to Himanshu Panse's module in Nanded, Maharashtra, there has been a long list. None of these incidents in the past got as much media focus. 

Still, we must welcome the media's seriousness towards it. But, the recent blast in Manipur, remained off the media radar. In fact, after the incident, there was hardy any special stories, capsules or discussions in prime time. It was not even carried in the headlines by 'national' channels.

In one report on IBN Live website, the headline was 'Blast in Manipur kills one'. Read this short report at IBN website at this LINK. This incident was serious, especially, as it happened just before Prime Minister's visit to the region. 

In fact, this report in IBN didn't even mention that the 'person' who died was a child. It wasn't taken seriously, else the report could have been updated, as it happens later in online reports. Other papers, channels and agencies also didn't consider it worth reporting. 

It was a general report with no focus on the organisations or extremist groups involved in the incident. Prime time discussions weren't conducted. If TV has no time or finds little TRP on North East, newspapers could have covered the story properly. But no, there was no interest or focus.

Why? 

Of course, nothing about modules, no suspects, no Terrorism angle, no name of terrorist or extremist outfits or worries about threat to India's security. There have been no follow-up stories either about this incident. Just one Hindi newspaper, Amar Ujala, on its website gave the news some importance. LINK

In fact, we hear nothing about arrests of suspects, which otherwise continues for days, nothing, just nothing. Silence. That's not the first. Of course, we know West Bengal will go to polls 2 yrs from now. We also see other developments. [Also, read the report in Asian Age]

But does it mean that media would take one incident so seriously that it would go on to demonise all Madarsas, and go to obscene levels of reporting. And in a similar other incident, there is hardly any effort to even report it, let alone talk about outfits, ideologies, local factors, law-and-order issues.

The factors are clear. Certain states and their demography, and presence of certain outfits in these regions, stir media more, than say, states that have outfits of different ideologies or even Naxals. The latter may commit even more heinous acts, but they aren't taken seriously. 

No wonder, media's credibility has hit rock bottom. But isn't this too worrying?