[Reader-list] Fwd: Muslims and Media Images—News versus Views (a Book Review by Yoginder Sikand)

[Venugopalan K M]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Venugopalan K M <kmvenuannur at gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Subject: Muslims and Media Images—News versus Views (a Book Review by
Yoginder Sikand)
To:


                                           Book Review
Name of the Book: Muslims and Media Images—News versus Views
Edited by: Ather Farouqui
Publisher: Oxford University Press, New Delhi
Year:  2009
Pages: 340
 ISBN: 019569495-3
Price: Rs. 695
Reviewed by: Yoginder Sikand

That Muslims and Islam suffer from a bad press is a widely accepted
fact. But the reasons advanced for this are varied, and often
conflicting. For many people, including in the non-Muslim media, Islam
and its adherents stand as fundamentally opposed to what they consider
as their cherished values. This owes not simply to prejudice and
misunderstandings about Islam, as many Muslims would argue. The
historical and present conditions of Muslim societies world-wide,
particularly continuing religious intolerance and gross violations of
human rights in the name of Islam, have played no small role in
sustaining sternly negative attitudes towards Islam and Muslims. These
attitudes are reflected in, and further reinforced by, large sections
of the non-Muslim media.
On the other hand, many Muslims believe that much of the non-Muslim
media is impelled by what they regard as a ‘conspiracy’ against Islam
and Muslims. The undeniable fact that both in India and elsewhere,
particularly in the West, much of the press is blatantly Islamophobic
lends some weight to their argument.

The unenviable media image of Islam and those who claim to follow it
is thus a result of a combination of a variety of factors. It cannot
be pinned down to a single cause, contrary to what many Muslims and
their detractors would simplistically argue. There is a bit of truth
in the arguments of both, but these explanations are partial and do
not tell the whole story.

This book attempts to explore the projection of Muslims and Islam in
the media while also seeking to account for the ways in which these
images are created and sustained. Many of the contributors to this
book are non-Muslim journalists and academics, some of them leading
names in their respective fields. They provide valuable clues as to
how key non-Muslim media professionals look at Muslim-related issues.
Several other contributors to the volume are of Muslim background and
possess an intimate knowledge of the Indian Muslim press. They offer
readers a critical insider’s perspective that is often lacking in
discussions about Islam, Muslims and the media.
‘Muslims and Media Images: Where Things Go Wrong’ is the title of the
opening essay by Vinod Mehta, editor-in-chief of the New Delhi-based
Outlook magazine. He claims, somewhat tendentiously, that the
principal cause for the negative image of Muslims in the non-Muslim
Indian media is what he considers to be the Muslims’ own lack of
understanding of the nature of the media. In turn, he says, this is
related to what he claims is the absence of any ‘forward movement in
general amongst Muslims […] especially in north India, towards social
transformation and modernization.’ (p.26).
Mehta appears to argue that the bad press that Muslims enjoy is
largely of their own making—a partial and limited claim that can
easily be challenged. It is true that much of the blame for the slow
pace of what Mehta calls ‘modernization’ among large sections of the
north Indian Muslims rests on their shoulders—particularly of those
who claim to be their leaders. However, Mehta misses out another
undeniable fact—that the opportunities for such ‘modernization’ for
many Indian Muslims are severely limited, or even denied, by pervasive
discrimination at the hands of organs of the state and by the mounting
challenge of Hindutva fascist groups who, as many have convincingly
argued, seek to consign the Muslims of India to the status of the new
‘untouchables’.
Mehta’s advocacy of ‘modernization’ as the key to improving the Muslim
media image is well-taken, although, lamentably, he does not explain
what he exactly means by the term. ‘Modernization’ is a value-loaded
concept, and can mean different things to different people. The
dominant form of ‘modernity’ is, of course, that represented by the
Western capitalist model, based on individualism, consumerism—indeed
hedonism—and the total privatization, if not outright denial, of
religion. While many of those who identify themselves as Muslims might
buy into this logic, numerous others would stoutly refuse to do so,
based on their own understanding of Islam that forcefully challenges
the ‘moneytheism’ of capitalism—a useful and provocative term coined
by the noted Malaysian public intellectual Chandra Muzaffar.
The point, thus, is not, as Mehta seems to suggest, an alleged refusal
on the part of most Muslims to ‘modernize’. Rather, it is a question
of what sort of ‘modernization’ Mehta advocates—and this is something
that he conveniently leaves undefined.
It is, of course, undeniable that much is wrong with Muslim society,
including in the ways in which many Muslims understand their religion
(particularly in relation to women and people of other faiths). All
this is in urgent need of reform, as many Muslims will themselves
admit. But blindly following the Western liberal model is no solution
at all—contrary to what ardent advocates of Western-style liberalism
would insist. It is something that Muslims who take their faith
seriously would refuse to consider.
Fierce competition and drive for profit maximization are defining
features of the media, Mehta points out, and so, he frankly admits, it
is naive to expect the Indian media to be extra-sympathetic to
Muslims. The media, he says, is a business, and although this does not
mean that it should be exclusively devoted to money making, it is not
feasible for it to be idealistic either. Most Indian media houses, he
notes, are run by businessmen and business houses. Their primary
interest is in making profits, and they ‘have little understanding of
what the media’s role vis-à-vis the Muslim community should be.’
(p.26). Gone, it might then appear, is the illusion of the media as a
crusader for truth and justice.

Mehta raises some crucial questions about the ways in which Muslims
are generally presented by the so-called ‘national’ or ‘mainstream’
media. Has the Indian media portrayed Indian Muslims with sensitivity
and objectivity, particularly given the many problems that they face?
Or, has it given ‘undue prominence to what Mehta terms the ‘lunatic
fringe’, and suppressed and ignored ‘liberal’ or ‘moderate’ voices’?
Has it projected obscurantist mullahs as the spokesmen and
representatives of the community and thereby given all the Muslims of
India a bad press, depicting them all as ‘rabid fundamentalists’?
These are questions central to the issue of media projections of
Muslims. Mehta’s answers to them will, clearly, not satisfy many
Muslims as well as sensitive others. ‘Journalists’, he writes—and this
is could well be construed as a specious excuse for both prejudice and
ineptitude—‘are fundamentally extremely lazy people. The assumption
that we are very industrious and will do a lot of groundwork for
stories is an erroneous one.’ So, he asks, ‘If a sound-byte is readily
available from the Imam of the Jama Masjid, for example, why should a
TV reporter go looking for the not-so-easily-available moderate voice,
which anyway makes for dull copy?’.
Needless to say, Mehta’s excuse does not impress. Is it simply some
sort of congenital laziness—as Mehta appears to argue—that impels the
media to highlight, and push from obscurity into notoriety, sundry
obscurantist mullahs? Or is the reason, as one suspects, definitely
less benign and forgivable—a refusal to recognize any voice other than
the most reactionary as ‘authentically Muslim’ simply because that
would defy the deeply-rooted stereotypical image of Muslims that a
large section of the non-Muslim media shares and has consistently
played a key role in promoting and reinforcing?
Mehta admits that another reason why the media tends to project
rabidly communal and obscurantist figures—both among the Hindus as
well as the Muslims—is simply because, as he puts it, they are more
‘saleable’. He dismisses the complaint of ‘liberal’ Muslims that their
voices are never highlighted in the media. He appears to circumvent
the issue by raising the apparent problem he says that the media faces
of locating, identifying and accessing ‘liberal’ Muslims. He claims
that ‘there are too few liberal Muslims who can be called upon to
speak’ (p.30). Only a few ‘usual suspects’ exist, or so he claims, and
among them are many who simply use the Muslim cause for self-promotion
and media publicity.
Just as Mehta leaves the notion of the ‘modernized’ Muslim (referred
to earlier) undefined, so too with the term ‘liberal Muslim’. Is a
‘liberal’ Muslim one who has abandoned Islam altogether, or chooses to
conceal his faith in order to ‘integrate’ into what is arbitrarily
defined as the Indian ‘mainstream’? Does a Muslim become ‘liberal’
only when he ceases to pray five times a day or regards the Islamic
prohibition on consuming alcohol an embarrassing rule that has no
relevance in today’s ‘modern’ age?  Is a liberal Muslim one who thinks
that sporting a beard or protesting against American imperialism and
Zionist oppression is rank obscurantism, and that demanding the
legitimate rights of Muslims is akin to ‘fundamentalism’ or
‘communalism’?
Sadly, that is precisely how the notion of a ‘liberal Muslim’ is
understood by many people. Needless to say, Muslims of this sort enjoy
little support within the community and can in no way be said to
represent it. And so their voices cannot count for much in the media.
But if by a ‘liberal’ Muslim Mehta means someone who, while deeply
rooted to and connected to his or her faith, is passionate about
universal human rights, equality, democracy and secularism, he should
find no difficulty at all in locating any number of such specimens. If
there is a will, as the tired cliché goes, there is most definitely a
way.  Most of my friends, for instance, are Muslims and they would
almost all fall into the category of ‘liberal Muslims’ if the term is
understood in precisely this liberal way.
That said, Mehta’s point that improving the image of Muslims in the
media is linked to the question of accelerating the process of social
change within the community is well-taken.  He also rightly notes that
it is for ‘progressive’ Muslims to demand to be heard, and for that
they would need to create organizations of their own and network with
the media. As of now, however, their voices are scattered and they
have little or no organic links with the Muslim masses. This is in
contrast to ultra-conservative groups among the ulema and their
well-funded, media-savvy organizations, which make them much more
easily accessible to the media.

In this regard Mehta justifiably critiques the role of north Indian
Muslim religious and political elites, who claim to speak for all the
Muslims of India but really do not speak for more than themselves,
raking up divisive and controversial issues to win the loyal following
of the Muslim masses. The media, he advises, should desist from giving
undue attention to such figures. Instead, it should seek out other
voices, particularly among the younger generation of Muslims who
probably relate to the contemporary Indian context in a more
meaningful way.
Mehta stoutly denies the charge that the English-language media is
biased against Muslims (although later in the essay he seems to
contradict himself when he admits that ‘there is no doubt that […]
images of Muslims [are] generally projected in a distorted form’
(p.33)]. His denial of bias can easily be contested, of course.
Surely, it is bias, as much as anything else, that accounts for the
fact that Muslims are invariably discussed in the media (including the
English press, which Mehta seeks to exonerate) only in the context of
some negative event, whether real or imaginary. Surely, it is bias,
among other factors, which causes the immense social, economic,
educational and cultural problems and concerns that most Indian
Muslims face to be almost completely elided in the media, Mehta’s
English press included. How can the existence of anti-Muslim bias be
denied when numerous fiercely Islamophobic writers have regular access
to several English
 papers? Surely Mehta cannot claim to be unaware of numerous editors
and regular columnists of English papers in India who make no bones
about their pro-Hindutva and fiercely anti-Muslim proclivities?
                                                          *
As befits his status as a known advocate of Hindutva, Chandan Mitra,
editor of the New Delhi-based The Pioneer, makes numerous dubious
claims in his rather shoddy paper in this volume. At the outset, he
observes that ‘the reality is that the image of Indian Muslims
projected by the Indian media varies vastly’, thus seeming to
acknowledge the fact that at least some sections of the media do not
give Muslims a fair deal. However, instead of critiquing those
sections of the media that are guilty of this, he lays down, ‘The
expectations among Muslims [regarding the media] are unfair in the
given circumstances’. He provides no explanation at all to back his
judgment. Indeed, he even argues that Muslims are themselves mainly to
blame for their bad media image, claiming that the Urdu press and ‘has
done more damage to the Muslim image in India than any other language
media’. Given his known ideological proclivities, it is hardly
surprising that
 Mitra makes no mention at all of the enormously influential and
rabidly anti-Muslim Hindutva-oriented press—including his own The
Pioneer—that continues to play a major role in magnifying and further
sustaining anti-Muslim prejudices and Islamophobia.
Mitra is of the view that the Urdu media is ‘negative and least
interested in propagating and encouraging positive Muslim images in a
plural society such as India’. He also contends that the Urdu press is
simply ‘not interested in playing the role of making Muslims a part of
[ …] social change and modernization’. Instead, all it does, so he
claims, is to provoke Muslim sentiments and bolster a narrow,
communal-minded leadership.
There is, undeniably, some substance in what Mitra claims, although
the generalizations that he makes are perhaps excessively broad. Most
crucially, he ignores the fact that the persistent insularity of the
Urdu press, and what might be called its obsession with issues of
religious identity—narrowly defined—is itself a reflection of the
Indian Muslim predicament that stems from the Muslims being a
marginalized and increasingly threatened minority. Although Mitra
would probably not care to acknowledge this, the Muslim ‘insularity’,
as reflected in the Urdu press, and which he so passionately laments,
has much to do with deeply-entrenched anti-Muslim prejudices and the
mounting attacks on the community—and organized anti-Muslim pogroms
are just one of the many forms that they take—by agencies of the state
and the Hindutva lobby. Muslim ‘insularity’ is not entirely of the
Muslims’ own making, contrary to what Mitra might like us to
 believe.
All that Mitra has to say is not without merit, though. He
convincingly argues that until the state arranges for Urdu to be
included in the curriculum of general schools, in most places Muslim
parents who want their children to learn the language will have no
alternative but to enroll them in madrasas. Because Urdu has now, for
all practical purposes, been reduced to the language of the madrasas,
Urdu papers are today geared to a readership that is mainly
madrasa-educated. This is reflected in their contents and their narrow
focus on religion and community identity.
No one familiar with the madrasas can deny that there is some merit in
Mitra’s claims. But where he errs is in making wild generalizations
about the madrasas, branding them as a whole as ‘a parallel system
dangerous not only for the nation but even more for Muslims
themselves.’ (p.94). He claims, without adducing any convincing
evidence whatsoever, that 50 million Indian Muslim students study in
full-time madrasas that number half a million throughout the country.
Besides these, he says, are many other children who study in part-time
madrasas. Needless to say, these are wildly exaggeratedly figures, and
indicate a profound ignorance of Muslim social realities at the same
time as they powerfully resonate with and reflect the relentless
anti-madrasa propaganda of the Hindutva lobby.
Like Mehta before him, Mitra piously claims that the English media has
no conscious anti-Muslim bias—an assertion that can easily be
contested, especially in the case of some papers like the one Mitra
edits. He candidly admits that the English media is elitist, and
professionals employed in this sector often have few or no Muslim
contacts. Since the vast majority of the Indian Muslims are poor and
do not know English or read English papers, he points out that there
is a tendency in the English press to ignore Muslim issues.
This argument can, of course, be easily challenged and rebutted. Far
from hardly mentioning issues related to Muslims, as Mitra claims, the
Indian media—including the English press—can be said to at times give
inordinate coverage to invariably negative sensational stories and
events involving Muslims—riots, wars, mistreatment of women, bizarre
fatwas issued by obscurantist mullahs and so on. Hardly ever does one
hear about anything positive about Muslims in the media. Are we to
imagine, then, that Muslims are congenitally unable to produce or do
anything positive that might be considered newsworthy? Of course, no
one can or should deny the frightening reality of fundamentalist
reaction, obscurantist ‘religiosity’ and deep-rooted patriarchy
associated with some Muslims, but surely it can be no one’s case that
these are a Muslim monopoly. Given this, one is tempted to believe
that the obsessive delight that the media takes in bombarding us with
 Muslim-related horror stories does indeed reflect a deep-rooted
anti-Muslim bias. Consequently, one cannot but profoundly disagree
with Mitra’s pious proclamation that ‘It is time for common Muslims to
come out of the paranoid feeling that the media has been consciously
seeking to victimize or portray them as villains in Indian society’
(p.97).
At the same time, Mitra is right in suggesting that the Muslim
intelligentsia should not shut themselves from engaging with the
English media. Instead, he says, they should seek to enhance their
space within it. He rightly laments the fact that ‘issues that are not
really germane to the genuine problems of the Muslim community get
undue attention from the media as well as from Muslim writers’ (p.98),
and that these only further intensify negative stereotypes. Likewise,
his plea to the media to shift its focus in reporting on Muslim
matters by focusing more on issues that will bring about fundamental
changes in Muslim social, economic and educational conditions and
empowerment is also unexceptionable.
                                                          *

In his article, the veteran journalist Kuldip Nayyar reflects on his
personal experiences of working with a Muslim paper and what it meant
to be a Hindu employed in such an establishment. He started his
journalistic career, he writes, in October 1947 with Anjam, then a
popular Delhi-based Urdu paper owned by a Muslim. This was shortly
after the Partition of India, a traumatic time for many north Indian
Muslims who chose not to migrate to Pakistan and now found themselves
as a hapless and beleaguered minority in India. The Muslims of Old
Delhi, where the offices of Anjam were located, lived in constant
fear, but, Nayyar remarks, the Muslim-owned Urdu press provided them
little succor. Many owners of such papers had once been ardent
advocates of the Partition and the creation of a separate Muslim state
of Pakistan. However, since they decided to remain in India, they
suddenly did what Nayyar terms as a ‘volte-face overnight’, without
explaining why
 they had so passionately supported the Pakistan demand all along.
They had little or no guidance to offer the Indian Muslims, who were
faced with immense Hindu hostility. The Muslims felt that they were at
the mercy of the Hindus, and this was even reflected, Nayyar writes,
in the attitude of his Muslim colleagues in the Anjam. ‘They treated
me’, he says, ‘as if I were a privileged citizen and they a
second-class lot. Their dependence on the generosity of the majority
community was tragic; they behaved like somebody with a hat
perpetually in hand’ (p.40).
The pathetic predicament which the post-Partition north Indian Muslims
found themselves faced with is still reflected in many ways in the
Urdu press, Nayyar remarks. The Urdu press today, like its counterpart
in the immediate post-Partition period, has, he comments, not provided
Muslims the direction and leadership that they require for living as a
marginalized minority in a religiously diverse society. It gives
exaggerated importance to religious issues, narrowly defined, thus
ensnaring Muslims in ‘a vicious circle’. It has also, as Nayyar puts
it, ‘somewhat distanced the Muslims from the Indian mainstream’ and
made them even more ‘inward looking’.
At the same time, Nayyar does not hesitate to critique what he terms
as the ‘national press’ for not projecting Muslim-related issues in a
fair and balanced manner. This media, he indicates, generally
‘oversimplifies’ Muslim problems and concerns and displays a marked
and erroneous tendency to interpret their issues in religious terms
while ignoring their numerous social and economic issues. Nayyar is
right, of course, although he does not mention that the same complaint
can be leveled against those who claim to be the leaders and
representatives of the Muslims, including, and particularly, the
madrasa-trained ulema.
Nayyar critiques the media’s habit of tarring all Muslims with the
same brush, of making wild and completely unwarranted generalizations
about Muslims and projecting them as inherently violent, fanatic,
obscurantist and so on. Thus, although Muslims suffer immensely more
than Hindus in what are euphemistically termed as ‘communal riots’,
the media generally depicts Muslims as culprits even if this is not
true at all.  While this is the case with some sections of the English
media, anti-Muslim biases are, Nayyar notes, even more widespread in
the vernacular press, large sections of which are now unabashed
supporters of the Hindutva ideology and agenda.
A major cause of such prejudice is wrong information, or the lack of
any information at all, regarding Islam among most Hindus—and the same
is true about Muslims with regard to knowledge of Hinduism.  Nayyar
bemoans the fact that the Indian media has played no worthwhile role
at all in promoting inter-religious dialogue, although this is
something that India cannot survive without. While Muslim-owned Urdu
papers are awash with articles—indeed, whole pages—about Islam, they
provide Muslim readers with no understanding at all about the religion
of the other peoples in whose midst they live. Likewise, while the
Hindi press routinely publishes stories about Hinduism, it offers its
readers nothing at all about Islam. Inevitably, then, in significant
sections of both the Urdu and Hindi media, Hinduism and Islam are
projected as polar opposites that allegedly have nothing at all in
common, and that, therefore, are supposedly viscerally opposed to each
 other.
                                                          *
Of all the papers included in this volume Siddharth Vardarajan’s is
the most clearly argued and convincing. He contends that the Indian
print media mirrors the biases of ‘mainstream’ political parties and
generally follows their imperatives. He explains that the so-called
representatives of the Muslims affiliated to these parties, whose
major task is to garner the Muslim vote for their political patrons,
are mostly ‘backward in their approach to the socio-economic issues’
of the country in general, and of the Muslims, in particular. This
indelibly influences media discourses about Muslims. In north India,
at least, where the bulk of the Indian Muslims is concentrated, these
self-styled Muslim political ‘representatives’, drawn principally from
the erstwhile aristocratic elite and conservative madrasa-trained
ulema, share a ‘backward-looking mentality’, which is generally
projected by the media to apply to all Muslims as such. Negative
 portrayals of Muslims in the media have also been compounded,
Vardarajan writes, by the infiltration of pro-Hindutva elements in
large sections of the media, including RSS activists who are ‘trained
in sensational propaganda-mongering’ (p.103) that is geared
specifically to whipping up anti-Muslim hatred.

Several contributors to this volume insist that the world of the
English media that they inhabit is free from any anti-Muslim bias, for
which they congratulate themselves while expressing dismay at the
vernacular press for fanning anti-Muslim prejudices. Vardarajan does
not buy this duplicitous argument. Instead, he frankly confesses the
existence of anti-Muslim prejudices in significant sections of the
English-media. He notes, for instance, media biases in reporting about
‘communal riots’, which, in his words, reflect an ‘extremely distorted
picture’ (p.105) of this sort of violence as allegedly being between
two equals and as generally the result of Muslim provocation. In most
cases of such violence, this is simply not true at all.

In this regard Vardarajan asks, why, ‘despite overwhelming evidence
that Muslims are the main victims of communal violence’, does the
‘standard riot narrative as propounded by the bulk of the media
continue to revolve around the alleged aggressiveness of the
Muslims?’. He offers some explanations for this distorted media
reporting. Firstly, what he calls the media’s ‘over-reliance’ on
police sources for news and information about communal violence. That
anti-Muslim prejudices are deeply-rooted in the police forces, which
have only a bare Muslim presence, is well-known, and this is often
reflected in their version of incidents of communal violence. The
element of police bias is further exacerbated  because many such
‘riots’ are not riots at all but actually indiscriminate killings of
Muslims by the police themselves. In the majority of ‘riots’, most of
the dead are Muslims slain at the hands of the police, and so,
Vardarajan writes,
 ‘the police narrative often tends to be aimed at sanitizing the role
of the police and painting a portrait of Muslims as aggressors in
order to justify whatever the police does’ (p.106).
A second reason, Vardarajan suggests, for biased reporting of
‘communal riots’ is the high financial and logistical cost of news
gathering. Most papers cannot afford to have bureaus all over India or
send reporters to far-flung areas where ‘communal riots’ might occur.
They are often forced to rely on underpaid stringers in small towns
who are generally locally very influential. Many of these characters
use their status as journalists to get close to local bigwigs, which
means that the integrity of the news-gathering process at the local
level can easily get compromised. Often, the local bigwigs are the
ones behind cases of ‘communal violence’, and local stringers and
underpaid staffers do not find it easy to send the real story because
of blandishments by the bigwigs or threats—even to their lives—from
them.
The third reason Vardarajan suggests for biased reporting of ‘communal
violence’ in the English (and other) media has to do with anti-Muslim
bias as well as lack of professionalism in the news-desks of papers.
For instance, he notes that several newspapers received funds from the
BJP during its rule at the Centre, and in this period ‘many English
journalists and editors officially joined the party or flirted with
it’. In this background, what Vardarajan terms as ‘the subtle show of
disregard towards the plight of Muslims’ (p.110) among large sections
of the English media is thus hardly surprising.
Vardarajan critiques the dominant discourse on what are called
‘communal riots’, pointing out how this itself tends to be heavily
biased against marginalized communities such as Muslims, who are often
victims of pogroms organized by the Hindu Right and elements of the
state. ‘The term “communal riots”’, he notes, ‘is an infelicitous term
to describe what is essentially organized and targeted violence in
which the law enforcement machinery is fully implicated, either
through omission or commission’ in selective killings of minorities.
‘The very discourse and notion of the communal riot’, he explains, ‘is
problematic because it posits one community fighting another’, which
is very often not the case at all. Once a riot is presented in this
manner, he comments, ‘media reports are invariably going to be biased
in way or the other. Typically, the reports tend to be biased, giving
the impression that Muslims are killing Hindus’
 (p.108).
Related to this is a pronounced tendency to project every case of
Muslim mobilization and assertion, even in defence of their legitimate
rights, as menacingly threatening, as ‘fundamentalist’ and even
‘terroristic’. Vardarajan cites a telling example about a group of
Muslims in the town of Malegaon who went around the town distributing
leaflets titled ‘Be Indian, Buy Indian’ and appealing to people to
boycott goods made by foreign companies whose countries had aligned
with the USA in waging a deadly war against Afghanistan. The leaflets
were banned by the police, who fired on the group of Muslims,
resulting in the tragic death of some of the demonstrators. When the
news of the demonstration reached Bombay and Delhi, newspapers there
reported it in very predictable terms—as a rally in support of Osama
bin Laden—although it was nothing of the sort.
Vardarajan clarifies that anti-Muslim prejudice in some sections of
the English-media does not necessarily indicate a conscious and
deliberate bias. It could also be attributed to the subtle influence
of anti-Muslim sentiments in society at large, whose influence
journalists, as members of their societies, may not remain immune
from. He suggests that this could be reduced by encouraging diversity
in the workplace and employing more Muslims in the media. However, he
also notes that this might not greatly improve media representation of
Muslims, for many Muslim journalists suffer from a self-imposed
censorship, fearing to raise issues of denial and violation of Muslim
rights for fear of being branded by others, including their editors,
colleagues and readers, as being ‘communal’, ‘pro-Muslim’ and even
‘fundamentalist’ simply for doing so.
Vardarajan laments the fact that the media is now run on market
principles, lacking any progressive social agenda at all. It is, he
notes, heavily biased in favour of the elites and loaded against the
poor. The vast majority of the Indian Muslims are poor, and the
elitist bias of the Indian media hits them badly. That, however,
Vardarajan says, is an unfortunate fact that has to be accepted for
the moment for lack of any immediate solution. In the meanwhile, he
advises, it would not be proper to write-off the media as a whole as
fiercely anti-Muslim. There are, he says, a number of Indian
journalists who are committed to social justice, democracy and
minority rights, and Muslims concerned about how the media treats them
must seek these people out and provide them the support they need.
                                                          *
Mrinal Pande, editor of the Hindi daily Hindustan, echoes several of
Vardarajan’s remarks in her paper. She laments that the Indian media
often overlooks the truth in reporting about minorities, particularly
Muslims, and abandons the professional norms that are supposed to
guide it. This, she warns, constitutes a grave threat to democracy,
liberty and equality. The problem is enormously magnified, she says,
because of the tendency of large sections of the press to go along
with political parties whose principal tool of mobilization is spewing
anti-Muslim hatred. As Pande puts it, ‘The media […] often becomes a
pawn in the aggressive sabre-rattling game of politicians. And when
that happens, an exaggerated fear about national security makes it
view events not objectively, as professionals and humane citizens, but
as Indian nationals threatened by a colossal tide of Islamic
belligerence’ (p.47).
Pande locates the deep-rooted anti-Muslim biases in significant
sections of the Indian media in the wider context of what she believes
is the alarming growth of corruption and sycophancy in media and what
she describes as a ‘near total erosion of professional objectivity and
a humane sense of justice’ (p.57). Some intrepid journalists who have
dared to challenge the powers-that-be and raise their voices against
oppression have even had to pay for this with their lives, she notes.
Given that Islamophobia is being consciously cultivated in influential
circles in the West to justify Western hegemonic and imperialist
designs, the excessive and growing reliance on Western news sources is
another cause for mounting anti-Muslim prejudice in sections of the
Indian media. It is thus no surprise, Pande remarks, that anti-Muslim
Indian columnists such as Arun Shourie, Swapan Dasgupta and M.V.
Kamath are often cited by the Western media. Islamophobia shapes media
discourse on Muslims in a highly skewed manner, resulting in all
issues related to Islam and Muslims being viewed through a ‘security’
lens or solely within the framework of religion and secularism.

The problem is further compounded in the Indian vernacular press, says
Pande, to which few, if any, progressive writers contribute,
preferring to write for what are generally considered as the more
‘prestigious’ English papers. This vacuum has been filled by
journalists who make no effort to conceal their passionate support for
the Hindu Right. Numerous Hindi papers, for instance, she says, are
now controlled by RSS sympathizers and activists, who use their papers
to spew anti-Muslim venom and even wholly false propaganda against
Muslims. Lamentably, little or no legal action has been taken by the
state authorities against such papers.
Ironically, Pande points out, Hindi communal papers as well as most
Urdu papers both tend to ignore stories of positive achievements of
Muslims, as well as their manifold economic, social and educational
problems, while focusing on negative and sensational events and
stories. Thus, both work in tandem to lending further weight to
negative stereotypical images of Muslims as ‘backward’ and
‘illiterate’. Both tend to project conservative ulema as the
authoritative spokesmen of the community, in the process reinforcing
the misleading notion of Muslims as blind followers of obscurantist
mullahs.
                                                          *

Several chapters of the book are devoted to the state of the now
almost wholly Muslim-owned Urdu press in India. Robin Jeffrey remarks
that owing principally to discriminatory policies of the state
vis-à-vis Urdu and the loss of the economic linkages that the language
once enjoyed, Urdu is now regarded as the language of the mainly
madrasa-educated, north Indian Muslim poor. He notes how, ironically,
the Government has systematically destroyed Urdu by removing it from
the school system but, at the same time, seeks to appear to be
generously patronizing the language in order to gain Muslim votes. One
way in which it does so is by providing advertisements to Urdu papers
in a bid to buy their loyalty. Jeffrey dwells in detail on this
sinister nexus between the state and sections of the Urdu press. While
Government sources claim that both the number of Urdu papers and their
circulation figures are steadily increasing, facts speak otherwise,
Jeffrey claims.
 Several editors of Urdu (and other) papers deliberately hike their
circulation figures in order to procure more advertisement revenue
from the Government; and there might also be evidence of smaller
papers hiking up circulation figures in order to get higher quotas of
newsprint than they actually need and then selling the excess in the
black market.
Jeffrey indicates some other disturbing features of the Indian Urdu
press. Because most Urdu readers are poor and lack purchasing power,
Urdu papers get few, if any, commercial advertisements. This
inevitably impacts on their quality. Further, many Urdu papers suffer
from outdated equipment, unprofessionalism, low staff salaries, poor
working conditions and unscrupulous owners. Most Urdu papers also
thrive on promoting narrow sectarianism and ‘emotionalism’,
deliberately highlighting provocative and anti-Muslim news, for that
is what sells. And since a very significant proportion of the readers
of Urdu papers are madrasa-educated, these papers pander to their
tastes and prejudices and their conservative, even reactionary,
stances.
                                                          *
An incisive essay by the editor of the volume, Ather Farouqui, further
highlights some of the unsavoury aspects of contemporary Urdu
journalism. Right since 1947, Farouqui contends, albeit with a few
stray exceptions, Urdu papers have failed to play a constructive role
in shaping Muslim sensibilities to help the community face the
enormous challenge of adjusting as minority in India. This, he argues,
has to do with the nature of the Urdu readership and the political and
economic proclivities of Urdu journalists. Urdu papers, he laments,
have further reinforced a fiercely sectarian and ‘emotional’ outlook
and a ‘ghetto mentality’ among Muslims. Urdu journalism has remained
largely static and its ethos and subject matter have hardly changed
with the times. In fact, in significant respects they have become
worse, he remarks, with several Urdu papers brazenly fanning religious
obscurantism for petty gains.
In this regard, Farouqui approvingly quotes the Urdu critic Masoom
Moradabadi, editor of Khabardar Jadid, as pathetically lamenting that:
 ‘The majority of Urdu newspapers wish to keep their readers buried
under grief and pessimism and […] mentally retarded so that they may
be rendered inactive in practical life. Since Independence, the
majority of Urdu newspapers have done nothing except lamentation. They
deliberately search [for] and compile such material as would push
Muslims into pessimism and hopelessness. These newspapers publish
stories of the tyranny [unleashed] on the community with renewed
vigour, but they never care to educate [Muslims] and tell them that
there are ways and means to come out from these circumstances and live
a respectable life. They […] are scared that [if Muslims are]
adequately guided […] no one will buy their blood-drenched newspapers’
(pp.244-45).

Instead of providing Muslim with positive role-models and inspiration,
Urdu papers, Farouqui points out, constantly dwell on the fact of
anti-Muslim discrimination, claiming that all the woes of the
community are a result of such discrimination at the hands of the
state or various other forces that are said to be engaged in a
‘conspiracy’ against them. Farouqui does not deny the obvious reality
of anti-Muslim discrimination. At the same time, he remarks that this
is just one part of a larger story. Muslim marginalization owes also
to the unenviable post-Partition fears and insecurities and
anti-Muslim violence as well as a host of other factors internal to
the Muslim community, including misplaced priorities of the Muslim
political leadership. However, the Urdu press conveniently ignores
these internal factors. This denial, instead of helping Muslims, only
further complicates and exacerbates their ‘backwardness’. In this
regard, Farouqui opines
 that if anti-Muslim violence were to cease and if the state took a
genuine interest in helping solve the manifold economic and social
problems of the Muslims, it is likely that the Urdu press ‘would not
be able to misguide and exploit innocent Muslims’ (p.245).
Another major lacuna of the Urdu press, Farouqui writes, is that it
continues to ignore the changing social realities of the Muslim
community and the country as a whole. For instance, it does not give
adequate space to the voices of a small but emerging ‘modern’ educated
middle-class among north Indian Muslims. It provides little
information or guidance on issues related to educational and job
opportunities for Muslim youth. It is also geographically limited in
its appeal. While claiming to speak for all the Muslims of India, the
north Indian Urdu press actually reflects the interests, concerns and
worldviews of many north Indian Muslims, mostly madrasa-educated
people. The communal rhetoric of the Muslim press and political
leaders of north India, which they seek to export to the rest of the
country, does not, Farouqui notes, strike a sympathetic chord in
several other parts of the country where inter-communal relations are
more harmonious and where
 numbers of Muslims have witnessed considerable economic and
educational progress.

Farouqui also dwells on unethical practices that he considers fairly
widespread in the Urdu press. For instance, he remarks that government
advertisements to Urdu newspapers—an effort to ‘appease’ vocal and
influential Muslim opinion-makers and, through them, to garner Muslim
votes—are readily exploited by some Muslims who are not really
journalists but who obtain a registration number for setting up an
Urdu paper, publish a few dozen copies and grossly exaggerate their
circulation figures in order to get government advertisements and a
quota of newsprint. In this regard, Farouqui points out, the Registrar
for Newspapers of India often plays a passive role and does not
properly check the authenticity of these figures. In this way, he
says, the vast majority of the registered Urdu publications do not
reach the public at all.
Another serious allegation that Farouqui levels against Urdu papers is
that most of them enjoy patronage of conservative Muslim politicians
of north India. He claims that ‘It is widely known that they receive
their funding from the same sources which finance the activities of
fundamentalist Muslim leaders’ (p.242). He also points out that
because Urdu papers fail to get commercial advertisements they feel
compelled to boost their sales by thriving on sensationalism and
religious bigotry and stories about ‘conspiracies’—real, but also
imaginary—against Islam and Muslims. This, in turn, also works to the
advantage of Muslim religious and political elites, who rely on such
issues to gain the support of the Muslim public. Not surprisingly,
then, Farouqui observes, ‘modern’ educated middle class Muslims who
are interested in national and international issues rarely read Urdu
papers, and patronize English or vernacular papers instead.
Urdu papers also generally suffer from a high degree of
unprofessionalism, Farouqui observes. They usually have a skeleton,
poorly qualified and pathetically-paid staff, who face poor working
conditions and are constantly at the mercy of the editors and owners
of the papers (these two roles are generally combined in one person).
They also suffer from a serious lack of originality. Typically, they
simply collect news and stories that have already been published
elsewhere and mould them according to own policy and ideology so that
they appear provocative and anti-Muslim, thereby boosting their sales.
They have little or no role for proof readers and copy editors. Most
subeditors in Urdu papers, Farouqui tells us, are not
well-educated—few know English or have a good grasp of developments in
the world around them, because most of them are madrasa graduates.
Urdu papers also generally have no space for intellectuals. Nor do
they commission articles. In all
 then, Farouqui argues, the Urdu press is now in an advanced state of decay.
                                                          *
A similar argument is made by the noted Delhi-based Islamic scholar
Maulana Wahiduddin Khan. He laments what he sees as the pathetic
condition of the Muslim press—not just in India but globally—an
indication of which, he contentiously argues, is that this press is
not even an accepted source of Muslim news. The Muslim media, he
contends, reflects the alarming lack of social awareness among Muslims
as a community and only further reinforces it. It actively discourages
good writers and thinkers from engaging in and with it.
Berating Muslim papers for their obsessive concern with controversial
matters that involve strife with other communities, the Maulana
advises them follow the Quran in avoiding conflict with others as far
as possible and in seeking dialogue as a way out instead.  He claims
that the Muslim media, as a whole, does not abide by Quranic
injunctions in this matter. Hence, he contends, ‘Judged by Koranic
standards, Muslim journalism falls far below that of others.’ While
the Quran encourages a positive attitude and stresses dialogue with
others, ‘the entire Muslim press of the present-day’, he bemoans, ‘is
plunged in negativism.’ ‘Where the Koran stressed the importance of
action and the avoidance of reaction, present-day Muslim journalism as
a whole is oriented towards and motivated by reaction’. Harsh words,
but they ring true.
The Indian Muslim media, the Maulana insists, ‘presents no model of
excellence’ to young Muslims. Instead, he says, it is packed with
‘amateur journalists who resort to yellow journalism’ and
‘unscrupulous sensationalism’ (p.260). In part, he indicates, this is
because it is regarded by some as the only way to survive in the
absence of a substantial Muslim presence in the industrial and finance
sectors that could have otherwise been a source of funds for the
Muslim media.
In line with Quranic teachings, the Maulana suggests, Muslims—and this
includes the Muslim media—should ignore the difficulties that they
face and, instead, seek out and make proper use of the opportunities
that are available to them. He minces no words in arguing that the
Muslim press, in general, rarely abides by the Quran in this respect.
‘Today,’ he says, ‘Muslim journalism has devoted itself entirely to
ferreting out difficulties, mainly plots and conspiracies of others
against them’. ‘Hundreds and thousands of newspapers and periodicals’,
he notes, ‘are brought out by Muslims but although they all appear
under different titles, they might well be lumped together under the
single title of “protest”. If we substituted “Protest Daily”, “Protest
Weekly” or “Protest Monthly” for their original titles this would in
no way be inappropriate to their contents.’
This, he insists, bodes ill for the Muslims rather than helping their
cause as many of them might fondly imagine. ‘In the light of Koranic
wisdom’, he says, ‘nothing but negative reaction with constant
repetition builds up a paranoid mentality’. This leads to constant
protest and strife, which is hardly conducive to ‘positive, practical
struggle’ and ‘constructive thinking’. ‘Regeneration can come only
through self-construction,’ he goes on. ‘It can never result from the
mere lodging of protests against others’ (p.256).
The Maulana spares no words in berating what he regards as Muslim
self-righteousness. He insists—though here, of course, one could
differ with him to some extent—that it is completely erroneous to
blame non-Muslims (as much of the Muslim media does) for Muslim woes.
But he is absolutely right when he points out that several of the
manifold problems of the Muslims are of their own making. Equally
valid is his critique of the marked tendency of many Muslims, as well
as much of the Muslim press, to refuse to engage in any meaningful
introspection. He expresses his profound disgust with what he regards
as the obsessive focus of the Muslim press with Muslim issues alone
and its indifference to the plight of others. He is equally scathing
in his criticism of what he refers to as ‘the image the Muslims
cherish of themselves as being faultless and above reproach’, as
allegedly ‘absolutely perfect, but ill-treated human beings, and as
‘entirely
 virtuous and innocent of all wrongdoing’.
‘It is on the basis of this kind of one-sided and partial
news-reporting’, the Maulana laments, that many Muslims want to create
their own media which, they hope, can counter the biased non-Muslim
press. The Maulana sagely comments thus: ‘What they do not realize is
that the world for which they want to create such a press has neither
any need nor any interest in it. Such papers issued by Muslims are
destined to be read by Muslims alone.’ Furthermore, he caustically
remarks, this sort of journalism ‘will only lull the community to
sleep by providing it with doses of opium: it cannot become the means
of its regeneration’ (p.259).
This does not mean that the Maulana sees absolutely no hope at all for
the Muslim media. He advises young Muslims to seek out a career in the
media and suggests that Muslim organizations take an active role in
promoting this.
                                                          *
Winding up this long list of well-justified complaints against the
Urdu media is an incisive overview of the Urdu press by Arshad
Amanullah, a madrasa graduate and now a documentary film-maker based
in Delhi. Among other factors, he argues, the hostility of political
parties to Urdu has been responsible for blocking the emergence of a
new generation of Urdu-speaking Muslims with a ‘secular’ outlook. This
void in Urdu journalism, he contends, has been filled largely by
graduates of conservative madrasas. In turn, this has ‘culminated the
process of the transformation of Urdu journalism into Islamist
journalism’ (p.264).
But there is, Amanullah tells us, at least some cause for cheer. For
instance, he says, South Indian Urdu papers are not marred—at least
not to the same degree—by the ‘emotionalism’ of their north Indian
counterparts. One reason for this, he suggests, is that the former are
generally better funded and so, unlike the latter, do not need to
resort to ‘sensationalism’ in order to attract readers and their
money. There have also been significant technological developments in
the Urdu media of late, Amanullah writes. Several Urdu papers have
launched electronic editions, and some years ago India’s first Urdu
language news service was started, with a staff that includes a number
of women—a rarity for the Urdu media. The Lucknow-based daily Aaj,
established some years ago by the noted reformist Shia scholar Maulana
Kalbe Sadiq, is, Amanullah writes, charting a new course in Urdu
journalism. In terms of variety of content and presentation, he
 says, it has no parallel in the rest of the north Indian Urdu press.
Interestingly, he notes, it has pages for literary writings, economics
and science, unlike most other Urdu papers.
At the same time, Amanullah says, most Urdu papers, including the
largest circulated Urdu daily in India—Rashtriya Sahara Urdu, which
comes out in nine editions—continue to thrive on sensational stories
of anti-Muslim ‘conspiracies’ while ignoring basic issues of economics
and education of the Muslims. This is, in a sense, a reflection of the
fact that most Urdu journalists are graduates of conservative
madrasas. According to Amanullah, they lack any training whatsoever in
the social sciences and are generally bereft of the ‘interrogative
spirit that is an essential quality in journalism’. Matters are only
made worse  by the fact that, so Amanullah says, the main criterion
for being a journalist in an Urdu paper is the ability to write
‘flowery language’(p.277).
                                                          *
A couple of pieces, in the form of general observations about
portrayals of Muslims in the media rather than detailed analyses, are
also included in this volume. In his contribution, political scientist
Rajni Kothari expounds on what he feels is the urgent for Muslims to
view themselves ‘not communally but socially, as part of a larger
struggle for social justice, equity and democracy in society as a
whole’—an accurate suggestion, but this is, of course, easier said
than done, given the relentless threats that many Muslims face
precisely because of being Muslim. Kothari also rightly stresses the
urgent need for democracy within Muslim community, besides in Indian
society as a whole. However, some might regard his prediction that as
Muslims join hand with democratic forces among Hindus ‘the press will
follow suit and become more constructive’ (p.39) as somewhat naïve and
overly optimistic.

Besides lamenting the fact that media reporting about Muslims is
greatly shaped by discourses about ‘Islamic fundamentalism’ and
stressing the need for Muslims to take to the media in a more
proactive way, the piece by the late K.M.A.Munim, former editor of the
Bangladesh Observer, tells us very little. Charles Borges’ article
takes up the specific case of Goa and examines how Muslims are
projected in the Goan press. Not surprisingly, he concludes that
anti-Muslim prejudice is rife and that the Goan media generally
portrays and reinforces stereotypically negative images of Muslims, as
alleged ‘terrorists’, ‘fundamentalists’ and so on. A rather shoddy
piece by Eselle Dryland, titled ‘Indian Muslims and the Free Press’,
purports to examine how what the author calls the Indian ‘free press’
(she uses the term without the mandatory inverted commas) portrays
Muslims. She tells us little that other contributors to this volume do
not say,
 but usefully adds that the point that the Indian Muslim press is rife
with pious platitudes and constant evocations of a glorious past, and
is, on the whole, devoid of the skills and expertise needed to compete
with the non-Muslim press.
                                                          *

Two articles in the book deal with the representation of Muslims in
the Western media. In her piece, titled ‘Islam and the West—Ominous
Misunderstandings’, Susan Maitra berates the Western media for
deliberately seeking to create and cultivate the image of Islam and
Muslims as the new public enemy. Taking advantage of deep-rooted
Islamophobic sentiments as well as ignorance about Islam among many
Westerners, she says significant sections of the Western media are
deploying Islamophobia as a cover-up to justify Western imperialism
and wars against Muslim states.
Howard Brasted’s analysis of the Australian press reveals similar
biases against Islam and Muslims. Invariably, he writes, Muslims are
presented in the Australian media in stereotypical and extremely
negative terms that are sensationalist and simplistic. To an extent,
he says, this is a reflection of latent Christian prejudices against
Islam. In addition to this is the lingering legacy of Orientalism,
although recent acts of heinous violence by self-styled Islamists in
the name of Islam have further strengthened anti-Muslim sentiments in
Australia, and, indeed, over much of the rest of the world. In this
regard, Brasted rightly notes that Muslims have a major responsibility
in working to promote a better media image of themselves and the
religion they claim to follow. He approvingly quotes the American
Muslim scholar Siraj Wahhaj as insisting that if Muslims want Islam to
be promoted in the media as a religion of tolerance, and not terror,
they will
 need to demonstrate this by their own actions.
                                                                   *
In his article on the portrayal of Muslims in Indian movies, Moinuddin
Jinabade points out that Muslim characters in Bollywood movies are
rarely presented as ‘normal’ people. Rather, they are made to abide by
a stereotype and this reinforces the notion of Muslim ‘difference’ and
‘exceptionalism’. In Bollywood movies, a Muslim is invariably a north
Indian who spouts Urdu poetry, and sports a beard or a tawiz. He is
often portrayed as a decadent pan-chewing, hukkah-puffing feudal lord
wallowing in wanton luxury. He is generally presented as overtly and
‘excessively’ religious. Muslim women are invariably depicted as
hapless, veiled creatures, perpetual objects of allegedly
uncontrollable male Muslim lust. In many films Muslims occupy such
roles as smugglers, butchers, gangsters and beggars. The latest, and
most dangerous, stereotype of the Muslim to inhabit Bollywood is that
of the Muslim-as-terrorist, and several movies have been produced
 in recent years centering on this theme. Muslims thus come to be
cruelly caricatured in Bollywood. Rarely, if ever, do Bollywood movies
reflect Muslims as ‘ordinary’ people unmarked by their community or
religious affiliations, contrary to the Hindu case. But this, Jinabde
perceptively adds, is by no means limited to Bollywood alone—even soap
operas broadcast on Indian television channels are invariably set in
comfortably upper-middle class and ‘high’ caste Hindu homes.
                                                          *
This book cannot afford to be missed by anyone interested in Indian
Muslim affairs and in media projections of Muslims. One will not, of
course, agree entirely with everything that the various authors have
to say. Admittedly, the book also suffers from serious limitations,
probably inherent in an edited volume of this type. There are, for
instance, no contributions by editors or others working in the Urdu
media. Nor are there any contributions dealing with the crucial issue
of Muslim women and their representation in the media. Likewise,
voices from south India, where the Muslim experience differs
considerably from the north, are entirely absent. Certain chapters are
plainly shoddy and could well have been kept out. Yet, and despite all
of this, this book excels.
-----------------------------------

Yoginder Sikand is associated with the Centre for the Study of Social
Exclusion and Inclusive Policy at the National Law School, Bangalore.


--
Sukhia Sab Sansar Khaye Aur Soye
Dukhia Sahib Kabir Jagey Aur Roye

The world is 'happy', eating and sleeping
The forlorn Kabir Sahib is awake and weeping

Check out my blogs: www.madrasareforms.blogspot.com
www.islampeaceandjustice.blogspot.com





_______________________________________________
Foil-l mailing list
Foil-l at insaf.net
http://insaf.net/mailman/listinfo/foil-l_insaf.net

Reply
Forward



New window
Print all
Sponsored Links
10,000 free email leads
now and 60,000 email leads each month. Lead Club email leads.
www.leadclub.net
Customized Stamping Foils
Eye-Catching Secure Stamping Foils Permanent Stamping. Visit Us Now!
VeritechIndia.com
Second Life advertising
Promote your Second Life business. Try Subscribe-O-Matic for free.
www.subscribeomatic.com
Vb Script
High-quality applications & bottom line savings. TRY VSTS 2008 !
Microsoft.com/India/VSTS-2008
Online MLM Business?
3,568 Leads and 156 Recruits $73,568, All in 3 Months!
raw86.com/spiderweb
About these

--
http://venukm.blogspot.com/



-- 
http://venukm.blogspot.com/