Tags:
Journalism of Courage
There8217;s an unhealthy bias against interrogating national icons in this country. The media can and should offer correctives. This newspaper certainly views with grave suspicion the thesis that some public figures have such an aura that to question is to automatically be wrong. But how do we shine the light on those who dazzle 8212; that8217;s the key question that should inform any effort to reinterpret a much told story. The story of Field Marshal Manekshaw, for example. An ex-Indian general and the ex-foreign minister son of a late Pakistani military ruler have, respectively, questioned Manekshaw8217;s military judgment and his commitment to his uniform and his country. These are serious issues. Which is why there has to be considerable discomfort that recollections and claims of certain individuals were accorded such weight. When actors in relatively recent history offer radically different stories, they must pass some tests. Because it is only when we are completely satisfied that the agents of the new narrative bring to the table at least as much credibility as accorded to the subject of interrogation that the pre-condition of a worthwhile scrutiny is satisfied.
The Indian general who in effect said the field marshal8217;s career was more hype than substance has every right to hold that opinion. But plenty more backward and forward linkages are required for his opinion to hold weight in any attempt to publicly re-evaluate Sam Manekshaw. Similarly, we surely should see that the ex-foreign minister son of the late Pakistani ruler 8212; the son seems to have built a nice cottage industry out of his father8217;s career 8212; is not the most fantastically credible interlocutor on the issues at hand; an assessment shared by many in his own country.
