E-Paper
Breaking mind sets
What does the Army do when there is no war? Or rather, how does it spend time in ?peace stations? where there is no ?war? to be fought? This question, though partly put to rest after Kargil and the subsequent ?unilateral? interest shown by media in doing its best to break the stereotype and attempt a ?peek? inside the otherwise strongly fortified portals of the armed forces, perhaps still continues to puzzle the large constituency of ?civilians?.
What does the Army do when there is no war? Or rather, how does it spend time in ‘peace stations’ where there is no ‘war’ to be fought? This question, though partly put to rest after Kargil and the subsequent ‘unilateral’ interest shown by media in doing its best to break the stereotype and attempt a ‘peek’ inside the otherwise strongly fortified portals of the armed forces, perhaps still continues to puzzle the large constituency of ‘civilians’. And rightly so, since, in this so-called age of information dominance there is precious little 'news worthy' information that comes out voluntarily from the army, leaving most frontline journalists, particularly those assigned defence beats, huffing and puffing to dig out news.
For the sake of gauging the interest levels of 'news buffs' in matters military, I attempted a small survey, which, I must confess, had to be wrapped up the moment I got the first response. Said the first and the only respondent, "Going by what keeps appearing with precise regularity in the newspapers, it appears that all that the army does, when not engaged in battle, is to keep celebrating numerous Raising Days and Anniversaries!" Apparently his observation may not be totally unfounded, since this is perhaps the only bit of news that most willingly reaches the press, with insiders utilising all their personal contacts with the 'journo fraternity' to make sure that a reasonable 'write up' appears in print!
To return back to the business of sharing information, perhaps the armed forces are not the only ones to take the complete blame. They are simply conditioned to unquestioningly follow the good old 'Official Secrets Act', which at best can only be described as perhaps half a century behind current times, considering the vast reservoir of information freely available in the 'public domain' in cyber space. Add to this the additional purge on the fundamental right to speech imposed upon men in uniform.
Nonetheless, a number of 'military analysts and thinkers' feel that the armed forces need to change their outlook towards information sharing and break free of the 'colonial' cliché that surrounds their media management policy. Almost all the modern armies have realised not only the 'force multiplier' potential of the press but also the tremendous catalytic value that the media has in the correct projection of the armed forces. Both the US and the British armies having evaluated the potential of media as early as the Second World War, continue to utilise it intelligently to their advantage until date.
Lt Gen Pankaj Joshi, the erstwhile Chief of Integrated Defence Staff (CIDS), had mentioned some three years ago about the army having instituted steps to 'reach out' to the press on issues that needed sharing of information. According to him media management had already been decentralised up to brigade level.
But very little of such 'opening up' is actually visible on the ground, Right to Information Act notwithstanding.
What the armed forces need to realise is that archaic mindsets have to be replaced by more progressive thinking. An informed citizenry is a major prerequisite for a successful democracy. A lack of authentic and objective information often tends to generate and spread baseless rumours, which can further the hold of forces inimical to a happening democracy. Considering that in the present times the armed forces have long surpassed the traditional role of protecting the borders against a 'defined' enemy but are now primarily involved in largely policing tasks against unabated acts of insurgency/ terrorism. It thus becomes the responsibility of all the primary organs of governance (military included) and the media to collectively cooperate in generating objective information, particularly related to crisis situations such as those that result out of the onslaught of terrorism and/ or armed conflict.
In very broad terms terrorists, security forces and the media covering violent events see the function, roles and responsibilities of the press from divergent and often competing perspectives. It is therefore equally essential to understand the motivations that guide both security forces and terrorist organizations/sponsors in their respective utility of media, before a clear view is taken on the role of security forces and the media in providing objective information to the public. The challenge to military and media communities lies in understanding the dynamics of modern patterns of belligerence/terror management and to develop policy options designed to serve the interests of the nation and society at large.
The need of the hour, therefore, is to alter the hitherto adopted hard-line postures by both(military and media). Hopefully we step into the New Year with athe hope that someday perhaps, such fixed attitudes will change. Happy 2006
