Journalism vs activism: The dilemma in #GauriLankeshMurder coverage

The politics over her dead body started almost as soon as the news of Gauri Lankesh’s murder in Bengaluru broke. It is now, like everything else, a nationwide battle between the supposedly secular “Left” and supposedly Hindu “Right”. The usual tribalism has taken hold. Accusations are flying thick and fast, with scant evidence on either side.

Lankesh, apart from being a journalist, was also an activist. She made no bones about being a Leftist. Her hatred of the Hindu Right, of which there are ample signs on her Twitter feed, was clear and public. Should we, therefore, assume that the Hindu Right is responsible for her murder?

The only concrete pieces of evidence that have been mentioned in news reports so far are the bullets that were fired, some CCTV footage, and the body itself. As the investigation progresses, more evidence will hopefully emerge. The killers must be caught and brought to justice because civilised societies do not allow the murder of any citizen to go unpunished. There can be no difference of opinion on this among people who believe in rule of law.

A number of similar murders have taken place in the past. The killings of Narendra Dabholkar and Govind Pansare in Maharashtra and MM Kalburgi in Karnataka come to mind. The CBI, which investigated the Dabholkar case, arrested a member of the Hindu Janjagruti Samiti, an affiliate of the Sanatan Sanstha, in the case. The Maharashtra Police, which investigated the Pansare case, also arrested a member of the Sanatan Sanstha in that case. There were two absconding accused in these cases. The Karnataka Police, which is investigating the Kalburgi murder, has failed to make any arrests so far. The suspect they have been looking for is also a member of the Sanatan Sanstha. There are, in other words, missing Sanstha suspects who are believed by investigating agencies to have carried out such hits in the past.

It is too early to conclude at present whether the Gauri Lankesh case is related to these or a completely different and unrelated matter. There have been many attacks on many journalists and activists around the country in past years and not all of them are related. However, given the similarities between the Lankesh, Dabholkar, Pansare and Kalburgi cases, it would be logical for investigators to examine possible connections.

A secondary and even harder question, which emerges from the reportage on her murder, is if journalists should also be activists in the first place? Is it okay for journalists to be politically partisan?

This presents several conundrums. In order for a journalist to advocate for a particular position or cause, it would be necessary to judge first whether the position or cause is a worthy one since we presumably do not want to advocate for unworthy causes. Judging which cause is worthy can be difficult to do in many cases. For instance, is it okay to champion the cause of nationalism, as some TV channels are now doing? If yes, then what kind of nationalism is okay and what kind is not? Would Indian nationalism and Kashmiri nationalism (termed as separatism by Indian nationalists) both be valid causes for journalists to champion? If not, why not?

These questions are not likely to yield uncontested answers. Any answer will raise further questions because the answers to these questions are not matters of fact. They are matters of opinion.

It is usual for opinions to vary with time and place. Over the past century or so, the general opinion around the world has shifted greatly in matters such as the role of women in society and the nature of homosexuality. In the matter of drug use, it has swung from one end to another, and the pendulum is still moving.

Until the early years of the 20^th Century, drug use was normal and unremarkable. Toothache medicines had morphine and cocaine in them. Even Coca Cola was exactly what the name suggests, a cola with coca extract. Then drugs came to be seen as bad and eventually, the “war on drugs” followed, with millions of people being arrested and jailed for possession of drugs such as marijuana.

In recent years, many countries including the US (some states) have gradually legalised marijuana.

Was an activist who advocated against marijuana use 20 years ago, to the point of jailing teenagers for it – thereby possibly ruining their lives – right or wrong? How about doctors from a few decades earlier who prescribed cocaine drops for toothaches even to children?

From the standpoint of what we know now, it would seem they were wrong.

So not only opinions but even facts on which opinions are based, change with time. Excessive certainty is the hallmark of the religious mind, not the scientific mind. Only religions claim their “truths” are eternal and unalterable. Only the holy warrior can be free of doubt.

Nonetheless, the doubt should not paralyse thinking people from all action. We live and act in our own times and milieus, and work in our own professions.

As journalists, our primary job is to report facts truthfully. In order to do so, it is necessary for us to observe matters as impartially as possible, and to establish facts as solidly as possible. We should take care to examine all possible angles to a story, and give voice even to those we may personally disagree with. This openness is what distinguishes us from activists, who have agendas that they advocate zealously.

Objectivity is a difficult ideal. As human beings, we are all conditioned by our surroundings and experiences. We cannot step outside of ourselves. Subjectivity is inherent in whatever we do. However, impartiality and balance are realisable goals. We can be impartial.

It is often argued that there is no sense in being impartial when one side is clearly right and another is clearly wrong. I agree with this. So for instance, in the present case – the murder of Gauri Lankesh – the murderers are clearly wrong, since murder is clearly wrong, and there is no question of being balanced between the killers and the victim. The killers must be caught, and the courts will hopefully find them deserving of the most severe punishment.

As journalists, we only have to concern ourselves with the factual accuracy of our reports – if we report the story as a crime story.

However, Gauri Lankesh’s murder has become a political story. Karnataka’s Congress chief minister Siddaramaiah gave her a state funeral, a rare honour for a journalist. Even the legendary Khushwant Singh did not get a state funeral. In Kolkata, the march for press freedom was led by Trinamool Congress leader, chief minister Mamata Banerjee, who in the past had a Jadavpur University professor arrested for forwarding a cartoon critical of her.

In Delhi, activist Shehla Rashid asked journalist Snehesh Alex Philip of Republic TV to “get out” of a gathering in the parking lot of the Press Club of India. He had gone there in his professional capacity, to cover an event to commemorate Lankesh and protest her killing. Sadly, other journalists present there did not see the irony in this situation.

From their actions, past and present, Banerjee and Rashid do not strike me as being supporters of media freedom.

It may be that they, and many of their supporters, are motivated by political ideology. So are many of their opponents. There is no good reason for journalists to become spokespersons for one ideology or the other. The nature of our work necessitates contact with politicians, but we cross an ethical line if we become party propagandists.

Of course, a lot of political activism in media is born out of greed and ego rather than conviction. It would be an exceedingly rare journalist or media owner who aligned with a particular ideology and political party because they were profoundly influenced by reading the Vedas or Das Kapital. Some people just slide into Left or Right through peer pressure and socialisation. Plenty of others take political positions in order to advance their careers, get TRPs, advertisements and foreign jaunts.

When we open the door to journalism of political partisanship, we must realise that anyone with the money to finance a television channel or website can play that game. It would be foolish to expect that the only people starting TV channels and news portals will be people whose views agree with ours.

Partisanship is a game that all sides can play. It is one that benefits politicians and activists across divides. It does not benefit journalism. By participating in the game, journalists contribute towards turning every single story into a battle of opinions between contending sides. Facts and truths are casualties in the ensuing fracas.

If we now find ourselves in a “post-truth” world of “alternative facts”, it is because we allowed loud partisan sentiment to substitute for unbiased journalism.

The author can be contacted on Twitter @MrSamratX