And the cameras kept rolling…

It was not the first time security agencies battling the terrorists during the 26/11 attacks on India’s financial capital were feeling compromised by the unrelenting TV news coverage of the counter-terror operations,much of it live. Security and intelligence agencies knew that the terrorists and their handlers in Pakistan were in touch over the phone and intercepts of those calls had shown that information gleaned from the TV coverage was being passed on to them.

This had even been communicated to the Central Government through the Union Home Ministry and it was decided to ask the channels to pipe down and not blow the cover of security forces. But by the time the Information and Broadcasting Ministry got moving and dispatched letters to the channels,it was evening on November 27 — almost 24 hours after the attacks had begun and scores killed.

In effect,heads at TV channels got this missive only the next morning. And a reminder about the Nariman House chopper operations got most channels to show those visuals 15-60 minutes after the actual event and not live. But that was not good enough as the damage had been done by then. As reported earlier in this series,the Lashkar handlers had caught the operation on TV channels and informed Babar Imran and Nasir who were inside and prepared to ambush the commandos as they entered the building from the fifth floor.

Commando Gajendra Singh was injured in the shootout and died of his wounds.

While the role of TV channels in covering the attacks came in for much criticism in the aftermath of the carnage,The Indian Express has found that Central and state authorities grappled with the problem from the first morning itself,but often without a clue about how to counter it.  

Even the News Broadcasters’ Association (NBA) — a group of news channels — shot off an advisory to heads and editors of 30 news channels and 14 broadcasters on the morning of November 27. It called for restraint,expressly mentioning that the coverage should in no way interfere with security operations or endanger lives of those involved. But as events over the next 48 hours showed,there were obvious cases of this advisory — and that issued by the Government — being breached by channels.  

The Maharashtra Government,on its part,had named IAS officer Bhushan Gagrani,Secretary for Medical Education and Drug Supplies,as its spokesman during the crisis. His job was to keep the media informed about the operations and update them about the rescue and relief effort involving the wounded and the families of the dead. But not surprisingly,TV news channels were more eager to cover live action outside the hotel complexes and Nariman House instead of reporting briefings by a bureaucrat.

Attempts were made to regulate this too. But again,like so many others during the 60 hours that shook Mumbai,they remained half-hearted.  

Journalists who had gathered outside the Taj were given printed circulars issued by the state Government through the Colaba Police Station, the local police station,asking them to stay away from the site to avoid injuries and to prevent the operations from being compromised. Hardly any reporter even accepted them from the hapless police constables distributing the circulars. And those who did,just laughed and threw them away. And the police just looked on,wringing their hands in frustration as they had no orders about the next course of action. 

“Discussions were held during the three days to restrict the media,” Gagrani told The Indian Express. “However,due to various reasons,no decision was taken. The media proved to a double-edged sword for us.”

Police officers admitted that they could have kept the media a distance away from the Taj and the Nariman House like they managed to do in the case of The Oberoi-Trident complex. Gagrani agrees. “This could have been done. Again,no such decision was taken,” he adds,indicating an absence of clarity or political clearance. 

The nature of that double-edged sword became apparent a day later. Around 12.30 pm on Friday,November 28,the NSG was preparing to step up its assault on the four Lashkar men inside the Taj and senior NSG officers approached journalists outside the complex and asked them to stop live coverage fearing it could hurt the operation. At the same time,the area DCP,who has the authority to issue prohibitory orders,sent notices to television channels to stop the coverage under the Cable TV Act.

However,no sooner did local TV channels black out the coverage,rumours began to fly thick and fast about fresh firing at the CST station,that another Lashkar man had been captured in the city and more hotels were being targeted,triggering panic and forcing police to rush to these spots to verify the reports. The Government panicked though some sections wondered if these rumours had been sparked by some mischievous elements in the media. It was decided to revoke the notice under the Cable TV Act and a press briefing was held to dismiss rumours about the new attacks.  

For all those who have endlessly questioned the efficacy of restricting live coverage about the operations,NSG chief Dutt reconstructs the events at The Oberoi-Trident complex as his answer. “At The Oberoi,the media was stopped at a distance. Even if you check the archives,there is very limited footage of operations at The Oberoi compared to the other two places. Since so little was on air about The Oberoi,we were able to locate the terrorists quickly,get a fix on their rooms and were able to confine them. On November 27,we had the place under our control,making it the first of the venues to be secured,” he says. 

Dutt says the NSG lost its surprise element — something which is very central to its operations — at the Taj. “It was telecast that the NSG had arrived. If we had the surprise element,the operations could have been expedited. With surprise on our side,we would have taken positions nearer to them and could have stopped their movements in different directions,” he says.  

In its defence,the Information and Broadcasting Ministry says the guidelines issued by it were more than clear. Pointing to clauses from the uplinking and downlinking guidelines,the ministry directed all news channels to ensure that their coverage “does not report the location,strength,movement,strategy or any related operations being followed by security forces engaging with terrorists as they are reportedly jeopardising their positions”. The ministry warned against displaying close-ups of gory scenes,dead or injured people “which may seriously distress a substantial number of viewers or cause public panic and incite further violence”. 

Heads of news channels claim that this circular “effectively” reached them only on November 28 — day three of the siege. They also point out that most channels beamed the Nariman House images in a ‘deferred live’ mode,broadcast 15-60 minutes after the actual event. “If the Government felt this could compromise security operations,they should have just contacted the media heads and we would have pulled it off air at once. The fact is that we got no proper communication from the Government until the evening of the third day of the siege and that was about not showing old footage. The advisory asked us to show dates and mark old footage as ‘file pictures’ and we immediately complied,” a broadcaster and a member of the News Broadcasters’ Association (NBA) says. 

Dutt,however,does not buy the “deferred live” argument. “Airing images after a time lapse of 15 to 20 minutes may not help matters in an ongoing operation. The longer the terrorist doesn’t know about your movements,the better. And the surprise element can last up to six hours,” he says.

A news head of another channel sought to defend the confusion by saying that 26/11 was an “unprecedented situation” for the media as well.