Opinion Telescope: The ironic defence of Cyril Almeida

Since Tuesday, the English news channels fiercely and rightly so, criticised the Pakistan government’s action: “Pak muzzling media”, “Journalist targeted by Pak govt” “#PakGagsMedia”, “Nawaz gags the media”, “Media crackdown in the name of security”, howled TV headlines. Other Pakistani journalists, including Dawn editors, were interviewed across channels and given a sympathetic hearing (NDTV 24×7, Times Now, India Today).

“#Pakquashes Freedom”, “Azadi in Peril”, declared News X during its Tuesday evening discussion, lauding the “intrepid’’ Mr Almeida. Anchor Rahul Shivshankar deplored the fact that some people in Pakistan, like Hafiz Saeed, Syed Salahuddin, were “free” to speak freely as their statements were perceived to be in the “interest” of Pakistan while others from “civil society” were gagged because they were at “cross purposes” with the government’s stance. Defence expert Ajai Shukla argued that Almeida had crossed the “red line” by suggesting that is was even “possible to question” the army while journalist Neerja Chowdhury reminded Shivshankar that Pakistan was not one entity, there were shades of opinion — and Shivshankar readily agreed. Almeida’s report raised issues about the Pakistani government and the military and his cause has been espoused by TV news channels and print — just as it ought to be.

But doesn’t this sequence of events have an uncannily familiar, if ironic, ring to it?

On TV news, some Indian opposition party politicians and members of “civil society” have done an “Almeida”: They have raised issues concerning the Central government and the security forces in relation to the violence in Kashmir, for evidence of the surgical strikes, for playing #surgicalpolitics — and on the issue of “banning” Pakistani artistes for their failure to condemn the Uri attack — note, they have been banned.

What happened? They have been attacked or “silenced” just as the PM “silenced the Opposition” with his Dussehra speech (CNN News 18).

On Thursday, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar said “credit” for the surgical strikes went largely to the PM. His comments that there were no surgical strikes in the past and “the frustration of 30 years were vented on September 29” were criticised by the Congress and other Opposition parties. On the Newshour Thursday evening, anchor Arnab Goswami questioned their questioning Parrikar: “Where is the politics (in Parrikar’s comments)? I don’t see (it). Does it occur to you that people of this country are angry with you for politicising this (the strikes)?’’ (Times Now).

Last week, NDTV 24×7 chose to not air the full interview with Congress leader and former Home and Finance Minister P Chidambaram on the “surgical strikes”, telecasting only excerpts during the day.

After the ECL to Almeida, Dawn in its editorial, reprinted in The Indian Express, spoke of the “importance of holding the state to account”. On Indian TV it seems to be the inverse.

The same news channels which applaud Cyril Almeida flagging the conflict between the Pakistani government and the Pakistani army, have questioned mocked, criticised such individuals/parties, holding them accountable for questioning the Indian government. Think Opposition leaders who tried to meet separatist leaders in Kashmir during the all-party visit to Srinagar in September, think Rahul Gandhi for his “dalali” comment (which Times Now Arnab Goswami called a “disgraceful remark”), think film personalities Shyam Benegal, Saeed Mirza, Om Puri, Salman Khan, and Mita Vashisht (“I am taking you off the show… take her off the show”, Times Now), to name a few. They have been accused of being pro-Pakistan, and anti-national for questioning the government.

By the same logic, is Almeida anti-national, too?