It’s been over four years since the horrific terror attacks in Mumbai cost hundreds of people their lives. It has also been over four years since Ram Gopal Varma’s location recce at the Taj Mahal Hotel soon after the incident cost the former Maharashtra Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh his job. Four years on, it appears that RGV has entrusted his movie ‘The Attacks of 26/11’ with the task of costing more people their money, time and energy.

The events of 26/11 left a permanent mark, vividly etched in the memories of every Indian and countless people world over. ‘The Attacks of 26/11’ however, leaves you with the kind of mark begging to be washed away with a bit of Surf.

The film is alarmingly lacking in depth and oozes uni-dimensionality as it narrowly centres on Nana Patekar, who plays the role of Mumbai Police Commissioner. It wouldn’t have been so bad if his character hadn’t seemed to resemble the Dark Knight speaking in an achingly restrained tempo. At least the Dark Knight did something apart from just talking in the film. Nana’s narration is the only connecting factor between the isolated sequences. His character finally jumps into action right at the end of the film – his idea of action being a lengthy ideological conversation with the character of Ajmal Kasab which in turn spurs a unanimous reaction from the viewers in the theatre where I’m seated – that of looking at their watches. The film purposefully avoids exploring the intricacies of the attack, as is evident from the lack of attention given to the incidents at the Trident-Oberoi hotel and Nariman House as well as the heroics of the NSG Commandos. The wave of trauma that the victims and their families experienced does not hit us as the audience is not given even a second to develop any connection with any character at the receiving end of the bullets.

The promising message at the beginning of the movie which tells viewers that the film “is the true story of how these attacks happened” is sadly way off the mark. The “how” would have told us about the vulnerabilities of our security systems and the firsthand accounts of survivors as well as people who were in the front line.

RGV chose to focus his attention on the loud noises of gunfire and wailing toddlers along with the mismatched integration of a background score more fitting for one of his ghostly films.

Meanwhile, Dan Reed, a multi-award winning British filmmaker had focussed on the right kinds of noise and made a film which actually tells the “true story of how these attacks happened”. In 2009, his Channel 4 documentary “Terror In Mumbai” won him a BAFTA.

In this remarkable documentary, Dan Reed is able to brilliantly capture the incredibly simple yet deep emotions and complexities of the masterminds of these attacks. We watch the terrorists through the eyes of the CCTV cameras at various locations, and we hear them through the clips of intercepted phone conversations between the gunmen in Mumbai and the controllers in Karachi.

In stark contrast to the portrayal of the terrorists in RGVs film – as being young, hormonally-charged brutes tripping on religious contempt and substances – we are invited to look into the natural minds of the terrorists in ‘Terror In Mumbai’. You almost empathise with the gunmen when you see their shock when they first enter the Taj Hotel. They are gobsmacked upon seeing the opulence and grandeur of a luxury hotel and we hear them talking to the controllers in Karachi over the phone, describing the big LCD televisions in the rooms, the huge windows and the shopping arcade. To complement the audio, we have real images of the gunmen walking the corridors looking admittedly blown away by the interiors and surroundings. In another instance, our stereotypical notions of the gunmen are challenged as we see the frailties and fragilities of the human mind. As we listen in on the conversation between the controller and the gunman at Nariman House, we realise the gunman cannot gather the strength needed to shoot the hostages immediately. He wavers, stalls and requests his controller for more time. This is the reality. There was no menacing brute-like demeanour that the gunman at Nariman House displayed when killing the hostages. He couldn’t even bring himself to perform the act.

Dan Reed is able to tell a story with sublime execution.

Coming back to “The Attacks of 26/11’, the role of the media has been completely ignored.  The media features only in one scene when Nana Patekar who plays the Commissioner of Mumbai Police, stares at the television screens in the control room and remains frozen and paralysed as he watches the news. Strangely enough, this unassuming five second shot perhaps contained more depth and symbolism than the rest of the film. It was emblematic of the media coverage at the time and the criticisms levelled against the news channels later – that the media were guilty of revealing too much and jeopardising the effectiveness of the counter attacks launched by our forces.

Dan Reed’s chilling documentary though, makes very specific references to the media and television. Following are a few outtakes from the conversations between the gunmen and the controllers featured in the documentary –

As the gunmen set fire to one of the rooms in the Taj, the controller asks him to make it a bigger fire:

“Your target is the most important. The media is covering your target, the Taj hotel more than any other”.

The controllers phone the gunmen upon viewing the carnage on television:
“We are seeing the fire on TV. More than 60 killed and many hundreds injured, you are doing a great job”.

No sooner had Kasab been captured than it was reported by the media, and the Controllers immediately instructed their gunmen at Nariman House:

“Tell the Government we will release the hostages if they let Kasab go”.

After one of the terrorists is killed at the Trident-Oberoi hotel, the other gunman speaks to his controller on the phone:

“The room is on fire, they are showing it on TV, I am in the bathroom”.

Following the attacks, there was criticism that the media had in fact helped the terrorists by relaying unedited information on their news channels – seemingly oblivious that they were being watched by the controllers in Pakistan.

Look at this clip for instance:

Arnab Goswami got the “first account inside the Taj Hotel” from Mr Krishnadas, a Member of Parliament. Not only does he question the man as to the number of people with him at the moment, but he also gets him to reveal their exact location in the hotel as well. The terrorist had their stronghold – The Taj Hotel. They were in control of the situation. None of the 200 people with Mr Krishnadas had even the slightest clue as to what was happening inside the building and he pleads with Arnab to part with any information in the belief that the people outside know more than the ones holed up in the hotel itself. Yet, in the video we can see how the conversation only led to reinforcing the number of potential hostages or worse yet, targets along with their exact location. It was now common knowledge to the terrorists. A simple account immediately turned into a cold blooded setup. Too easy.

However, there was another perspective to this – the people who had friends and family inside the hotel at the time had no way of ascertaining any information regarding the condition, whereabouts and safety of their loved ones. They turned to the news. Is it not reassuring and uplifting for one such person to hear this account by Mr Krishnaprasad from inside the Taj Hotel as he reaffirms the location and safety of a large number of people? Yes, people did think so too.

There are certain fundamental facts which cannot be undermined. These are facts and realities of the situation only reporters on the frontline can tell you – what they were faced with, how they adapted to the situation and why they didn’t feel like they were doing something wrong. NDTV’s Srineevasan Jain, former TV Today Senior Special Correspondent Akash Banerjee and Tehelka Business Editor Shaili Chopra were some of the first to report from outside the Taj Hotel and they share some of their experiences and opinions about this matter.

Akash Banerjee

“There were people saying the media went ahead and gave Pakistan the information they wanted. But, ask the people who were reporting live. The truth is that throughout 72 hours, we stood behind a rope that was drawn at the Gateway of India by the Government of India. This rope signalled where the common citizen could go to – you could be Rajdeep Sardesai, any top journalist or just a common bystander, this was where one could go up until. Journalists were actually within range of AK 47 fire.

If there is an unprecedented event such as that, you expect the news channels to report. Every channel is trying to be on top of the news and is in the TRP race. Did the news channels go overboard in their enthusiasm? Perhaps. Could it have been prevented? No, because there were no protocols. With just a rope, how can you expect around 50 news channels to suddenly behave like detectives and practice self censorship”? 

Sreenivasan Jain

“There was a severe shortage of official information. This posed a huge challenge to us because it took the authorities a very long time to tell the media the go and no-go areas.

We did break away from live coverage on the second day to make sure it wasn’t compromising any information, there were attempts to regulate”.

Shaili Chopra

“One has to recognise that the state machinery completely collapsed and did not have any means to communicate with its own stakeholders such as the media about how much information was being exploited by the attackers. We were all in a blind hole so overall I would say while there could have been restraint, I don’t think the media was all rash and irresponsible.

So while I would say the news channels may have crossed boundaries through individuals who couldn’t control their desire to be sensational some of us had our feet on the ground and were responsible to give facts and information as and when it happened.

The decision to have deferred telecast of such situations is a great learning and it should be upheld. What was also clear is that there is no point in making such situations into a platform to launch jingoistic campaigns”.

It is evident from the words of these journalists that they recognise and accept the shortcomings during the coverage of the 26/11 attacks. Yet, what is more striking is their solidarity and loyalty to the media and to their duty of communicating facts and information for the benefit of others. These are journalists dedicated to their cause of reporting an event to the best of their abilities. All three of them were frustrated by the criticisms levelled against the media and defended their own positions strongly. Why? Not because they disagreed with it entirely, but because they were let down by the government. They were frustrated because while they adapted to a situation in which the government issued no restrictions, they were unfortunate enough to be the first ones in the line of fire.

The inference is simple. There is an urgent need for the establishment of protocols by the government. They will be used as a reference to ensure there is an element of preparedness and clarity for the media and the public in the off chance that there is any unprecedented event in the future. A couple of practical methods that come to mind are – the use of deferred telecast during such situations and a central command centre to disseminate information to the media. As far as information is concerned, Akash Banerjee did mention that all journalists were cooperative and complied with the requests of the Police or NSG whenever they were asked not to show a visual of something.

While we can only hope that such an incident won’t take place again, RGV would do well to watch Dan Reed’s Terror in Mumbai. We highly recommend it.