The tragic consequences of irresponsible, overzealous journalism The Wire 06 Mar 17
The past few months have witnessed a series of media attacks on the army. It began with the present Chief of Army Staff’s (COAS) appointment, moved to the complaint by one jawan of a million plus army and covered the statement made by the COAS on stone throwing and disrupting operations against militants in the valley. Every incident erupted on media networks, occupied prime time debates and attempted to degrade the service. Defending the service appears to be the responsibility of the defence minister or the veteran community as serving personnel remain gagged due to conditions of service. Whether such intense media hype is a natural process or an intentional action to downgrade the military in the public eye, remains debateable. Such degradation does not occur in the case of other civil services, where gross misuse is the order of the day. However, it has impacted the army’s functioning and morale.
The icing on the cake was the recently released sting video by an online magazine, ‘The Quint’, concerning the hotly debated buddy issue. It directly or indirectly presented details of the individual, Roy Mathews from the artillery, located in Deolali, who was lured by a reporter (Poonam Agarwal), to make comments against his superiors. This was done by posing leading questions seeking specific answers, compelling him to commit suicide, within a day of its release. He never realized that the people he was speaking to were recording his statements, using hidden cameras. The editing of the sting interview would logically have removed comments which did not suit the magazine’s goal of the sting.
The diary in which he made his last comments, his apology to his superior by a message on mobile and his last call home have confirmed this inner guilt. The magazine while releasing the video, gloated over its expose, without once considering the ramifications of its actions. If it wanted to highlight any wrong doings on the buddy system, then the sting should have been conducted on the preparator of misuse, which is the officer, not the jawan, who is the supposed victim. Breaking the trust of a simple jawan, who was unaware of being made a pawn, is the cheapest form of reporting.
The Quint and specifically the reporter, Poonam Agarwal, had approached army headquarters, seeking comments on the system, possibly after the conduct of the sting. They were replied to by an email from the Public Relations Officer (PRO), on 28th Feb. The reply contained complete details of proposed changes to the system as concerning the army. The magazine in its hurry to seek credit, with overzealous editors and staff at the helm, released the video without awaiting the reply. It has yet to issue a clarification and publish details of the reply received. It was an action aimed at garnering a few additional viewers for its site, but in the process, took a life.
Roy Mathews family was justifiably worried and has asked for a second autopsy. After all, a suicide is not a natural death for a soldier and has financial implications for the future. The army never questioned the individual, but when he realized the damage he had done to his superiors and his unit, the hurt was internal, leading to such a drastic response.
The suicide has harmed the army’s image, morale of the unit in which Roy was serving and most importantly his family. I wonder if ‘The Quint’ realizes that his family would never see a son, husband or father again and would have to bear this trauma for ages? Is it aware that since it is proved to be a suicide, there would be only family pension and not salary or full pension? They would be compelled to struggle for eternity. Further, being a suicide, there would be no national flag and no military funeral. Would the magazine or the journalist dare to face the family?
I am certain, no magazine representative would attend the cremation, out of guilt. The only support to the family would come from his unit, of which he was once a part. I wonder if the magazine has realized that they have abetted the suicide? Has it realised that the country has lost a trained soldier on whom it invested large sums to train? An apology, even if made, would never reverse a life, hence would have no meaning.
Whether this is one-up-man-ship or aiming to gain additional viewership for increasing revenue, I am not certain. However, it is clearly a case of immaturity and overzealous editors. The silence projected by the magazine post the suicide, may just be temporary as it would aim to release more reports, maybe even falsified, to justify its actions. The bare minimum that the magazine can do is offer a letter of apology to the family.
The magazine and its reporter are guilty because they ignored all rules, broke the trust of a simple soldier and entered and filmed in restricted areas, despite anti-trespassing and restricted area boards displayed all over. Hence, it needs to face the consequences. Firstly, the family and the army should sue it for abetment to suicide. The veteran community of the state should fund and support this move. Secondly, they should be compelled to compensate the soldier’s family for their personal loss and the government for the cost of training. Finally, since they filmed inside a restricted area an FIR needs to be registered and those responsible charged in a court of law.
About the Author
Maj Gen Harsha Kakkar
Retired Major General Indian Army