SS Khaplang and the faux nationalism of Big Media

On the evening of June 9, news began to filter in from Myanmar that SS Khaplang, 76, the leader of a Naga insurgent group that bears his name, had passed away following medical complications from a diabetic stroke. To those who follow news about Northeast India, or insurgency in the region, or both, this was big. Mr Khaplang had been something of a legend in his lifetime.

The messages of condolence began to flow. The chief minister of Nagaland, Shurhozelie Liezietsu, was among those who condoled the death of the veteran militant leader, in a statement issued on his official letterhead.

There was an immediate outcry by sections of the television media in Delhi. An anchor on Republic TV who seemed unfamiliar with Mr Khaplang’s name pronounced that the letter was a “shocker”, and took the opportunity to ask one of his colleagues to show it on her “Microsoft Surface Screen” – a neat example of product placement in news. The colleague showed the letter and repeated the judgment that it was shocking, several times over, before proceeding to read parts of the letter and say the CM was supporting terror outfits. The anchor then said it was a “real shocker” some more times.

The tone and tenor of the coverage was typical of the channel, and belongs to the school of journalism made mainstream by its founder Arnab Goswami. Mr Goswami, in his previous tenure as head of Times Now, had achieved a measure of what passes for success by his hectoring style, which inspired copycat attempts by a string of other anchors. In this instance as well, breathless shock and condemnation was the common theme of coverage in ‘national’ media.

Back in Nagaland, the condemnation by the self-styled nationalistic Delhi-Mumbai media did not go down well. Practically every section of Naga civil society came out in a candlelight march as a tribute to Mr Khaplang. The event, organised by the Naga Students Federation on June 14, saw participation from leaders of the Naga Hoho, the apex organisation of Naga tribes, the Naga Mothers Association, and the Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights. A second public memorial was organised by the Eastern Nagaland People’s Organisation and the Naga Tribes Council.

Outsiders don’t know

There is a common tendency across Northeast India to assume that outsiders are ignorant of the realities of the region, and this explains the inability of the Delhi-Mumbai media to fathom what is going on in the region. The corollary to this thought is that, had the good folks in the television studios in Delhi and Mumbai known more about the history of the region and the complicated ground realities of the conflicts there, they would not report sensitive stories in the callous manner that they do.

The suspicion of widespread ignorance is justified, but the notion that better knowledge would change coverage is naïve. The problem is not that the anchor covering the story is sitting in Delhi or Mumbai; the problem is that the anchor is sitting in judgment. It is a problem of the style of journalism that has now become prevalent.

There was a time when journalism used to be about reporting the facts as best as the reporter could discern them, as dispassionately as possible. This is obviously no longer the case. Now we have “nationalist media” and “anti-national media”, BJP media and Congress media, corporate media and, well, more corporate media. Journalists now no longer try to remain impartial – they try to suck up to one side or another, either out of conviction, or to merely keep their jobs, or in the hope of being rewarded with some crumbs. The principle of impartiality had provided an anchor to the profession; jettisoning this in favour of activism began the descent down the slippery slope that has led to where we are now.

Since its launch, which was preceded by promos that showed the Indian flag waving, and promises that Mr Goswami would be Pakistan’s migraine, Republic TV has been engaged in a running battle with its rivals including Times Now for the position of the most nationalistic television news channel. If Republic TV waves the Indian flag once, Times Now waves it more vigorously twice, causing Zee News to do a flagpole dance, causing Republic to…you get the drift.

I do not believe for a moment that this surge of flag-waving has nothing to do with Television Ratings Points, aka TRPs. In recent years, yelling at people in the name of the nation has yielded better TRPs than merely reporting the news, sparking off the sudden surge in popularity of nationalism in media. This has also coincided with the rise of Narendra Modi and the BJP. As a result, it now pays in more ways than one to take a “nationalistic” stance. There are TRPs, as well as brownie points from the establishment now in power, for those who adopt the allegedly “nationalistic” line.

It is quite another matter that such nationalism frequently does the nation more harm than good, as seems to be the case in Nagaland.

The Times Group, where Mr Goswami developed his oeuvre, has not shown much concern for media ethics at any recent time in its history. The group’s position on “nationalism” is vague at best; while Mr Goswami was screaming at retired Pakistani generals, The Times of India was busy with “Aman ki Asha”, a peace initiative with Pakistan. The newspaper is famous for selling editorial space, and its owner Vineet Jain has gone on record in an interview with The New Yorker magazine to declare that they are not in the newspaper business, they are in the advertising business.

The group’s competitors are also in the media business; the channels and newspapers exist to make profits and garner influence for their owners. The anchors, including the redoubtable Mr Goswami, do whatever it takes to achieve this.

There’s a quip about economists: “An economist is someone who, if asked whether the slaves should be freed, will tell you whether that will increase or decrease the GDP”. Similarly with others whose primary concern is profit maximisation — there is no place for ethical considerations unless those considerations should happen, somehow, to impact revenues.

News, in the hands of these entrepreneurs, is a commodity. They are in the business of advertising, and they will flavour the news in which the valuable ads are sandwiched with whatever masala it takes for the masses to consume it. It can be pictures of scantily-clad ladies at one time, and soldiers at the border at another.

The big competition right now is between Republic TV and Times Now, making it like a classic Bollywood battle between estranged stepbrothers. Republic TV, shortly after its launch, claimed to have become number one in viewership. The claim is disputed by Times Now. Both channels have been claiming the top spot, and both flash numbers to back their claims. Which of them is airing fake news is hard to tell.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India has become involved in the battle after the News Broadcasters Association wrote to it complaining that Republic TV was listed in multiple genres apart from news.

This furious media battle has a direct impact on how every potentially controversial item of news is reported. The descent of news into reality television occurred some years ago; now the shows – an apt term – are trying to ratchet up the excitement levels even more.

To go back to the issue of Mr Khaplang and Nagaland, it is true outsiders tend to not know much about the Naga issue, but the outsiders here are of two kinds. Outsiders to Nagaland may be unaware of its complexities; outsiders to Delhi and Mumbai media are typically not very clued in about the complexities of that world either.

The complexity in Nagaland

The reasons for the shenanigans of “nationalistic” media are easy to locate in TRPs and the race for the top slot, and eventually, in the quest for profits. More TRPs=better ranking=more ads=more money.

The reasons for the public outpouring of support for a leader of an armed insurgency would be harder to explain to those whose notion of India is limited to their own very circumscribed experiences of middle-class life in cities in mainland India. The background to the insurgency in Nagaland and its long and complicated history is beyond the scope of this article.

There was, and remains, a divide between various insurgent factions in the Naga struggle, of which the two principal groups for many years were the National Socialist Council of Nagalim factions headed by Messrs Thuingaleng Muivah and Isak Swu on the one hand and Mr Khaplang on the other. Of these leaders, only Mr Muivah is now alive. The group he leads is engaged in working out a final settlement with the government of India on the basis of a framework Naga Accord they signed with the Modi government.

Mr Khaplang enjoyed considerable respect for maintaining a simple lifestyle and a certain purity of purpose. Unlike many other insurgent leaders, he did not sell out.

It is a complicating factor of the Naga struggle that two of the tallest leaders of the movement, Mr Muivah and his principal rival Mr Khaplang, were Nagas from areas outside the present state of Nagaland, which is home to the biggest and most powerful Naga tribes such as Angamis, Aos and Semas. While Mr Muivah is a Tangkhul from Manipur, Mr Khaplang was a Hemi Naga from Myanmar, from an area bordering Arunachal Pradesh.

The interests of the various Naga tribes tend to diverge with their various geographical locations. While all sections of Naga society are doubtless keen to see an honourable conclusion to their decades-long struggle, it is unlikely that those who currently enjoy dominant positions in the existing scheme of things would be happy to hand over the keys to the kingdom to others and quietly settle into secondary roles.

The outpouring of condolences for Mr Khaplang, therefore, contain a message for India and its “nationalistic” media, but somewhere in it, there is also a message for Mr Muivah. Among stalwart leaders of the Naga insurgency, he is the last man standing – but he is still not the sole repository of all their hopes. In honouring Mr Khaplang, the Nagas have issued a reminder that the late rebel leader’s contribution to the cause must also be taken into account.

The author can be contacted at samrat.choudhury@gmail.com.