Point of View

Checking BBC's (im)partiality

By Susantha Goonatilake

Elizabeth Wright, the woman in charge of the Asia programmes of the BBC in an "exclusive interview" with The Sunday Times has denied any bias in the Sinhala service of the BBC. She claims that when asked to produce instances of bias, critics have not been able to give any specific examples of partiality. Further she says, "the BBC has no views," they only report impartially. There have been similar claims, she says in regard to her Urdu service of being anti-Indian, and her Hindi service of being anti-Pakistan. These had not stood up to scrutiny. Spoken as a true defender of the faith (on the BBC). Let us examine.

First the claim that the BBC does not hold any views of its own is propaganda aimed at gullible natives. No serious student of the media would subscribe to such simplistic balderdash. All media wherever they exist necessarily have their built-in biases. Choosing from the thousands of stories around the world alone implies judgement and subjectivity. What is considered news-worthy therefore differs from company to company, and from within the same company - from channel to channel. The coverage of the English language BBC (to which I regularly view and listen) has different stories from Sandesaya (to which after listening for a few times last year, I switched off recoiling at its neo-colonial missionary agenda). And the different BBC programmes targeted at native British audiences have different fare from those targeting us. Apart from this necessary bias in selection, are biases consciously and unconsciously brought in, specially at war time.

Thus till recently the BBC would not have particular IRA persons covered. In the Gulf War, there was by definition, no objectivity in the coverage, because by Pentagon policy, decision reporters were fed only carefully selected news. This was no accident, but a policy lesson learnt from the Vietnam War coverage. Future wars in which the West participated, it was now decided would not be brought to the drawing rooms and so negatively affect the pursuit of the war.

But the Sandesaya is much more than any other foreign programme. It is carried by the state channel, multiplying thousandfold its reach. During colonial times and for a few years after Independence, the local radio carried the English language BBC news. But it was stopped. And today in spite of several local private radio channels that feed alternative views, this neo-colonial practice has been reintroduced. It would be like say the Indian Doordarshan having a prime time slot in the BBC programmes for the British Isles. An idea that would definitely rile the ex-British Foreign Service employee, Elizabeth Wright. For that matter, if the local radio chiefs had any spunk, they should ask reverse rights to put the local state news on the BBC national channel! Intellectual property rights, and the rights for local knowledge in general are today very much part of the local debate.

But the BBC in its other programmes and conduct, show much more finesse. The recent appointment of a new Director-General was discussed and debated widely. On his appointment, the new Director-General Greg Dyke announced, "I'm very much in listening mode". A very different attitude from the school marmish and no-nonsense from the natives attitudes of Dyke's employee Elizabeth Wright. But BBC selections of recent Sandesaya heads have given very different outcomes. One, Vasantharaja turned out to be a Tiger propagandist, now the LTTE star performer. (For that matter, why does not the BBC which covered so intensely the Pinochet, Rwandan and Serbian crimes-against-humanity cases, do a similar coverage on Anton Balasingham, a British citizen guilty of the same charges.)

And the current incumbent of Sandesaya, Priyath Liyanage one is told was previously a male nurse. However much I admire the British health service and its laudable functions like moving bed pans, being a male nurse is hardly a good preparation for a broadcaster. Last week, the BBC advertised for an employee for the Sandesaya and called for persons well versed in the local culture. Liyanage's predecessors have been the likes of H.M. Gunasekera, Sudharman de Silva, Bhadra Gunatileke and Sunanda Mahendra. They were all persons known in the Sri Lankan community as media persons before their appointment in the BBC. Their legitimacy came prior to the BBC appointment and not after it.

Now Wright has deliberately chosen to miss the whole point in the criticisms against the Sandesaya. It is blamed for being a neo-colonial instrument against its audience of primarily Sinhala Buddhists. The criticisms she cites against the BBC Hindi and Urdu programmes were just the opposite. They were considered by their critics of being too partisan to their target audience of respectively the Indians and Paksitanis.

Biases are not just in individual instances but in patterns. Now there are fairly accurate means of getting at the bias or otherwise of Sandesaya. This is by getting a competent content analysis by an impartial Sinhala academic group and comparing it with the English language BBC and say its Hindi programmes. I can volunteer to make contacts with competent personnel to do this say through the Sri Lanka Association for the Advancement of Science, the largest association of academics in the country and modelled after the British Association. Let Wright be assured, that the choice would be those with British qualifications or their equivalent. These qualifications would however not be in the essential and laudable one of bed pan removal. Wright has only to give samples of her broadcasts and the truth can be readily known.

Nehru, the media and information

By Elmo Goonaratne

Few rulers all over the world, few politicians have been so respectful of the freedom of the Press and so tolerant of Press criticism than Javaharlal Nehru.

Nehru very often used to say, "rather have a completely free Press with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or regulated Press".

This, according to highly respected Indian Journalist Mulk Ray Anand that this was no mere rhetoric, but an ideal Nehru lived up to every single minute of the seventeen years he presided over Indian destiny. Of course, Nehru was human enough to be infuriated by dangerous misuse of Press freedom or criticism of him which he considered grossly unfair. It is said that on many such occassions he gave expression to his rage with a display of famous Nehru temper.

But it was also known that not once did Nehru allow personal feelings goad him into using his official powers to harass an errant Newspaper or magazine.

Nehru's total commitment of the freedom of the Press was part of his wider and even more passionate attachment of democratic values which he was not prepared to abandon even temporarily for any reason whatsoever. There had been items when Nehru had to restrain his less tolerant and less farseeing colleagues who, liked by the irresponsibility of certain sections of the Press, had wanted stringent action taken, both punitive and preventive. It is said that Nehru would wait patiently and explain to them that if the freedom of expression was tampered with, beyond reasonable limits prescribed in the Constitution, other democratic freedoms would not survive either. The most notable instance in point was the enactment of the Press Bill (objectionable matter) almost entirely at the instance of C. Rajagopalachari who had succeeded Sardar Vallabhai Patel as Home Minister, Nehru had seen to it that the duration of the new law was confined to two years, at the end of the period the law had been allowed to lapse, Rajagopalachari by that time had retired to Madras.

Nehru's approach towards the Press had a lot to do with his deeply ingrained liberal instincts says Indu Malhotra. If Malhotra says he was influenced also by his experience of the role played by the Press during the freedom struggle, by the close connection between the national movement and the newspapers. Gandhi had founded "Young India" "Harijan" and had made them the medium for his message to the India masses.

Nehru never impinged on the Editor's independence or authority even remotely. Political analysts in India firmly believed that Nehru had a compulsive need to explain himself and his government's policies to the people.

Many said that he ruled the country through the Microphone, and was described as great a communicator.

Nehru recognised that like the country, the press was vast and varied. Newspapers Nehru once told group of Journalists ("are of course, of all kind) in India there are thousands of them". There are responsible newspapers, there are newspapers, that are sometimes responsible and sometimes not, there are also some newspapers that are more irresponsible than responsible, and of course there are some sheets which seem to excel only in flights of imagination and other acts of irresponsibility. Fortunately, the latter are not, and should not be taken seriously, the latter are not important. They should be ignored.

Describing dangerous writings Nehru once said, I do not believe in the Philosophy of the British Raj that it was the Government's duty to suppress the newspapers, which it thought had an evil tendency. This was a wrong view. Evil could not be cured by suppressing it. By imposing restrictions you do not change anything, you merely suppress, the outer manifestation of certain things thereby causing the thought and idea and underlying them to spread further. Nehru's response of the situation therefore was to allow the Indian Press have even more freedom than in any other democratic country and hope that this freedom would induce among the largest possible section of the newspapers the requisite sense of responsibility. As for wrong doing by the minority of the Press, expect that the necessary corrective would come from the Press and its associations, but not on the Government.

Nehru had often twitted Editors and correspondents, declaring that those who always pronounced and pontificate on almost every subject were often as ignorant as the politicians trying to rule the country, but unlike the politicians who had to face the people of his electorate, the journalists were not accountable to anybody. But he had always hastened to say, apart from expecting the Press to set up and observer norms and standards for self regulation, but certainly would not permit the government to control or regulate the Press.

It is said that Nehru consistently urged on the Press, without ever trying to impose it. The difference between an ordinary newspaper and a great newspaper, he had always stressed, was the latter's concern for the people especially for the poor and the exploiter. Nehru appointed a Press Commission to report on the Press and its problems comprehensively.

Senior Indian Journalists say that no story of Nehru could be completed without mentioning the monthly Press Conference held almost without fail unless he was abroad. Nehru used meet correspondents accredited to the government once a month to answer whatever questions they had to ask, at the start of the conference he used to invite the journalists to indicate the broad topics they wanted to discuss, he would then proceed to take one by one. All Nehru's Press conferences had headline news all over the world. Indu Malhotra one of India's top flight journalists described some incidents where Nehru himself lost his cool with the Media.

"Let me mention two incidents in describing one incident Malhotra says: "I was involved, which threw light both on Nehru the superfine but mercurial individual and his impeccable approach towards the Press.

In 1950 soon after the arrival in Tibet of the troops of the People's Republic of China against which India had protested. The left opinion in India was critical of the government policy. The marxists called it the liberation of Tibet "Blitz" published an article attacking Nehru, by one of India's top flight journalists G.K. Reddy.

Nehru who lost his cool denounced Reddy as a fool or knave or a combination of both. During this time Nehru's words had been the law.

As soon as the conference was over the Press Information Bureau had cancelled Reddy's accreditation. The estate official had served notice on Reddy to vacate the government accommodation allotted to him. Nehru had heard of these developments in the evening he had got angry, he got all concerned to apologize to Reddy and everything had been restored. Eight years later Malhotra who was in the statesman, and Subbaroyan of the Indian Express was at the receiving end of a tongue lashing by Nehru at a Press Conference.

Subbaroyan had leaked out a letter written by Nehru to state Chief Ministers on the Naga problem. Malhotra had published a top secret report of the Law Commission which had criticised the highest judicial appointments. Nehru had lost his balance completely and was in an uncontrollable rage he had said, "enough is enough", and to start proceedings under the official secrets Act. Seeing Nehru's anger, the Intelligence Bureau had gone into action. Intelligence officials had started shadowing the two and annoying the two. A few days later when the two journalists were having tea, Nehru had sent a message asking both journalists to see him in the next room.

Nehru had seen both of them coming to the room, he had one hand on Subbaroyan's shoulder and the other on Malhotra and said, "look here, I lose my temper often but not my senses of proportion. I am sorry that you are being troubled by IB officials. But please don't worry, I have called off the inquiry. I don't like newspapers revealing official secrets or damaging national interests for the sake of a scoop. But I am afraid I have to put up with this also."

Maha Sangha has major role in politics

By Kumbakarana

Once again the question of Buddhist monks and their involvement in secular politics is being questioned. The protest campaign launched with the joint statements and activities of Buddhist monks of the three Nikayas are the hot points. The ruling regime has rejected the role of the Buddhist clergy in intervening in the discussion between the LTTE, Government and the opposition, with Norway as mediator. They have ignored the call of the Mahanayakas and are continuing their dialogue. The LTTE meanwhile is determined to emerge victorious in their war campaign to lay a firm military foundation for a separate state. A radical third contender which has entered the foray is the Sinhala Nationalist force from the south led by the sangha.

The burning of the Norwegian flag and the claim by the BBC Sinhala corespondent, Elmo Franando of being beaten by the protestors has swept under the carpet the call of the Mahanayake's and also the seven non-negotiable principles laid down by the Sangha Sabha. The seven non negotiable conditions representing the 'Sinhala aspirations' totally reject the concept of devolution which is generally offered as the key for the resolution of the 'ethnic conflict'. In 1981 the Maha Sangha agreed to a system of District councils for the resolution of this conflict. The principle of the TULF "a little now and more later" sabotaged this peaceful solution. In 1987 under the Indo-Lanka accord the north and east were merged and Provincial councils were established. These two events from the proved beyond any reasonable doubt that the conflict with the LTTE will not end by the use of political solution such as the devolution of power. So, the Maha Sangha's position is based on empirical facts which the PA-UNP don't seem to be able to grasp.

Another five resolutions were also passed at that Sangha meeting. The three most important ones are highlighted here. One, calls on the armed forces to totally reject any call by the goverment for the cease-fire. Two, proclaim a new constitution from the Dalada Maligawa by the Sangha if the government brings into effect a constitution without parliamentary endorsement and three, to place the entire country on a war footing to make a concerted and sincere effort to end Tiger terrorism.

The first two are addressed to the Sinhala - Buddhist- dominated army and only the future can determine how much complicity they will be given. It is poignant to remember that throughout Sri Lankan history there have been many instances of such calls by Sangha that have made a major difference to the regimes and rulers of Sri Lanka. The second proposal envisages a grave situation where parliament is temporarily suspended and the army is in control. Both proposals place the army in the most central and decision-making role which as mentioned earlier is by no means an unfamiliar situation of Sri Lankan history. The present crisis portends the possibility of a leading up to such a scenario if the goverment takes unwise action such as suspension of parliament as suggested by Minister S.B. Dissanayake, to engineer a constitution by illegal means.

The seven practically and politically sound principles laid down by the Sangha Sabha show the insight the Sangha of this country has of the present conflict. They are far ahead of the politicians of both the government and opposition in this respect. To ignore these seven worthy points in the present negotiations is been down right foolish.

A reminder to the politicians and the 'academics' who are trying to analyse the role and involvement of the Sangha in the present conflict. It was the Sangha that led the army of Dutugemunu in the battles of unifying the country. In 1818 it was Ven. Wariyapola Sumangala Thero who tore the British flag down and stamped on it and motivated the people to fight against the colonisers by exhibiting the tooth relic,Later Ven. Mohottiwatte Gunananada Thero and other prominent Theros led similar leading roles. Sri Lankan history has many shining examples of radical Bhikkus who have shaped the history of this country. It is also the reason why Sri Lanka remains a Buddhist country while most countries from Afghanistan to Indonesia have fallen by the wayside.

Today, Sri Lanka is at a political and military cross road. A defeat in the Elephant Pass battle can be the final straw in the patience of the army's rank and file. It could be the victory that Prabhakaran has been waiting for over a long time, his final victory which could not be achieved through the various murderous tactics he has used. This time his partners have been well chosen, long time supporter and ally Norway as the peace maker, UNP the weak opposition who will cling to any straw that is thrown their way, the only contender was the president on whose life an attempt was made. The failure was a set- back but he appears to be in control once again with the strong and unfailing allegiance of brother-Norway.

Sri Lanka is facing a grave moment and its sovereignty is under threat. The support and strength the Sangha can provide the people is on test, a role they will have to play if the country is to survive the combined attack on its sovereignty by the state, the opposition and a foreign force allied to a terrorist group.