Conversation with Ramnath Goenka Award 2016 winners: Sreenivasan Jain on Truth vs Hype’s The Shadow of Salafism

Sreenivasan Jain, Managing Editor, NDTV 24×7, received the 2016 Ramnath Goenka Award for investigative reporting in the broadcast category for a two-part, hour-long documentary, The Shadow of Salafism and Road to ISIS.

The series appeared, in September-October 2016, on NDTV’s show Truth Vs Hype hosted by Jain. It explored the rise of a Saudi-style Islam, known interchangeably as Wahhabism or Salafism, in India. The investigation tracks down the sources of funds and the dangers posed by the spread of this ideology.

In a conversation with Newslaundry, Jain speaks about the story that won him the accolade, the perils facing investigative reporters, the need for a sort of disillusionment before reporters take up investigative journalism, the need for organisational support for putting out such stories and more.

What were the challenges you faced while working on your month-long investigation, The Shadow of Salafism? 

So, this is a fairly complex and sensitive story to approach — the entire question of Saudi-sponsored or Saudi-funded Islam in India. So the first challenge was to try and simply understand what all these categories mean. Because these terms are thrown around Saudi Islam, Saudi-backed Islam – what does that actually mean? So there are different terms that are used. You know one of the terms used is Salafism, there’s Wahabbism, so what do these terms mean? Do they stand for different things? In what way do they divert from perhaps more traditional practices of Islam in the subcontinent. So I think, at one level getting a hang of the theological and intellectual arguments for this entire area was the first big challenge.

Then after that to look at the areas of concern, what are the sort of problematic aspects of this kind of Islam — what made it raise red flags not just in India but also other parts of the world  — meant actually delving into all of these theological debates about the different strands of Islam, its Wahhabi interpretation and its Salafi interpretation and its difference from the Sufi school of thought. All of that was quite challenging because as journalists we’re not engaging with this stuff on a day-to-day basis. Plus, it’s nuanced, complex and also highly sensitive so I think just getting the grasp of that was the first challenge.

Subsequent to that, we had to do quite a lot of digging to establish this whole business of foreign funding — you have to look at government records. Also, we had to go and match that on the ground.

How difficult was it to track down the money? 

In terms of the actual money itself, it’s like the official route of funding is through the FCRA. So while all that is available in government records they run into hundreds and hundreds of documents, so sifting through the FCRA records was quite challenging. Also it [government records] doesn’t tell you — it doesn’t categorise fundings from here and there or for what [it was used]. So, trying to identify what were the potential sources of funds that were coming into this strand of belief system and funding these madrasas and other charitable educational institutions — also took quite a lot of time.

However, not all the information could be corroborated by the government documents.

Corroborated in the sense that we, basically, are trying to look at what are the funds that have come into what could be broadly termed as Islamic charity in the past four years. So, we had already done that selection. So what was left to be done was to check whether all the donors, as well as the recipients, came from the Salafist school of thought. That took quite a lot of cross-verification because we had to check not just all the antecedents of the donors but all the antecedents of the recipients as well, and you have to go on the ground for all that.

At the time of working on the story were you worried about any backlash? Since Salafism isn’t just a sensitive topic but is little understood.

Well, as journalists whenever you’re doing a story on a sensitive issue then you always expect some sort of backlash and criticism. So we had assumed that there will be people who will have a problem and will have something to say about it but I say that it is pretty much par for the course.

In investigations, there is always a fear of getting things wrong or of intimidation from interested groups. Did you face any such threats while working on this story?

No, not at all. We didn’t face any intimidation in this case.

While there’s much romance associated with investigative reporting, what are the hardships one faces as an investigative reporter?

I mean there are multiple, I won’t put it as negatives, but there are definitely things about it that are far from the glamorous image it has. For one thing, there is a lot of drudgery involved. You spend a lot of time sifting through documents and records and things like that. So it is data. It is not very exciting work. It’s not like war reporting where you are going out and you have stuff happening. So that aspect is quite challenging, you need to get used to it. There’s also a requirement for a great degree of rigour, precision and attention to detail. So a lot of time people, journalists these days, have no patience. They just want quick results, that [patience] again is something which is important.

There are also risks involved. There is no guaranteed payoff. You could spend weeks digging up something or exploring something and sometimes you may not find what you’re looking for or it may turn out to be a non-story. It is one of the most frustrating things as a journalist.

Then there are stories that will put you in some kind of a dicey situation — it could be harassment, it could be low-level intimidation or it could be pressure put on your employers or bosses, it could even escalate from there. We know journalists who have faced threats while trying to speak truth to power, trying to rake up the muck on various wrongdoings. That’s the final aspect to it.

Do you ever wonder if it’s worth all the risks involved?

It is definitely worth it. Investigative journalism for me is an oxymoron because all the journalism should basically uncover something. It should have a revelatory nature to it. It should shine a light on something that exists in the shadows.

So, what keeps you going despite the risks?

There is nothing more rewarding than when you’re working on something and you’re able to uncover something and are able to break a story. There’s no bigger high for a journalist than that. If you try to stick to those parameters that are required then you will get something. For me, it gives you great personal as well as professional satisfaction.

Apart from all the awards, there is also a lot of criticism. The Hoot wrote a piece in 2016 pointing out problems with the documentary. So, how do you deal with all the criticism?

Criticism can take several forms. Some people just like to abuse or say provocative things. Sometimes, they just want to be insulting — which is part of what’s happening on social media. So that’s something that is always unpleasant, we’re all humans, we all have thin skin but you can deal with that.

I think, what, definitely, is a position no journalist wants to be in is when people can actually dismantle your story on a factual basis and say that, look factually, you’ve got these things wrong or these were notable omissions in your story. So that’s a big risk which you take on as a journalist all the time. Like when you want to do a story, you’re exposing yourself to that and putting something out there. But as an investigative journalist, you have a greater risk because you raise the stakes of the story since you are going after “power”. So you have to be prepared to insulate yourself from any sort of loopholes. But if you are caught out, if you’ve made a mistake and if there are lapses, then you should have the guts to accept it and say that this was a mistake — and make corrections and clarifications, and basically acknowledge that.

If you had to give the award to a journalist in the same category as yours, who would you give it to and for which story?

Oh wow. You’ve got me there. This is something that needs thinking through as there are lots of journalists doing some terrific work which I admire. The only thing is that I got it in the broadcast category and I have to confess that most of the work I admire is in the print or digital space. So to try and think of people who are doing investigative work on TV is tough because sadly TV is just not doing enough of that.

Why is that?

Look, that is something which will become a matter of debate. But broadly, TV has sort of taken the shortcut to journalism — it’s gone the talk way, it’s gone the opinion way. And, now most TV channels are acting as propaganda organs for the government and are not really interested in doing anything which speaks truth to power. They’ve just become a mouthpiece for power. So for a host of reasons, TV has abandoned that mandate [of speaking truth to power] and I feel that is a problem is not just in India but it’s a problem worldwide. It isn’t like people on TV aren’t doing investigative work but simply not enough of it. It’s unfortunate, you know, but there it is.

So what do you think is the role of organisation that people work with? Do you think the organisation plays a big role in deciding of how and what kind of investigation is done – in terms of funding and editorial support?

You’re nothing without your organisation. So, if the organisation encourages and fosters a certain kind of work then you can do that work. You will thrive, your work will thrive and if it’s the reverse, then you go the other way. Express has always had a tradition of doing this kind of work. They like to break stories. So that culture thrives there and reporters thrive as they get to do that kind of work. At NDTV, I’m fortunate to have a company that allows me to do this, encourages it, promotes it and we have been doing it now for almost six years with Truth Vs Hype. So, we all as journalists, what do we want? We want employers and bosses to be benevolent, bosses who believe that it’s important to do solid, in-depth, investigative work that challenges the establishment and holds power to account. That’s how it is. I wish there was more of it in the Indian media. But that’s the sort of situation we’re in.

Any advice to young journalists who’d like to enter television news?

I would say to them that you need not straight away think of investigative journalism. You should just approach stories and whatever area of journalism — you should approach it with the bent that you want to uncover stuff. For example, Bombay streets are flooding. So you shouldn’t just be reporting on the fact that the streets are flooding. You should think why are the streets are flooding? If the Bangalore lakes are foaming, it’s not just lakes are foaming but why is the lake foaming? If you approach journalism like that, you’ll find that answers will lead to some fantastic stories.

Shouldn’t it go beyond the why and into problem solving?

No, journalists’ job is not to solve problems. It’s the job of the government. Our job is to uncover all sorts of wrongdoings, all sorts of malpractices and holding power to account. Too often we simply skim the surface, we do eyewitness reporting, we describe things. We don’t uncover things. For example, why are the roads flooding. Okay, they’re flooding because the drainage work wasn’t done. Why wasn’t it done? Because the contractor did not deliver. Why didn’t he deliver? And then it takes you all the way back, where you may uncover something which may expose a clear line of culpability. So when the government turns around and says the rains were very heavy or some such nonsense, then you have the facts to challenge them. And if you approach news like that, it will serve you well because as a young journalist, you’ll have a lot of ideas and the editor will look to you for ideas. It isn’t rocket science, it is right under your nose. You just need to look at it in a different way.

Do you think journalism schools train young journalists for that?

Well, I think that it’s a mixed bag. We work with J-school kids who are good, some who are on the ball and some who aren’t that. It’s a mixed bag — it varies from J-school to J-school, student to student and journalist to journalist.

(Transcribed by Devyani Chhetri, an intern with Newslaundry.)

The interview is part of a series that will involve conversations with other Ramnath Goenka Awards winners.