Reportage on the Terror Boat incident

The disturbing developments near the Indian coast on the 31^st December 2014 were a chilling reminder that terrorism is a clear and present danger to our national security. Following the events our government released a statement  describing what occurred.

So how did our news media cover this? Happily most of them practiced restraint i.e. they reported what was put out by the government with apt headlines. But then there were a few who choose to react differently and openly expressed their doubts about the veracity of the Indian government’s claim and all this without any reason or proof.

This attack was led by this article appeared in the Indian Express a day after the news broke. The headline proclaimed “Doubts mount over India’s claims of destroying ‘terror boat’ from Pakistan” giving the erroneous impression that our government had claimed that boat had terror links and that the coast guard had destroyed the boat.  Framing of Headlines are important since it is skimming reader is likely to derive his conclusions solely on it.  Now to the contents, the article begins with 'Less than 48 hours after the Coast Guard destroyed a boat it suspected was ferrying explosives' but the government release didn’t claim that it had destroyed the boat, all they claimed was that they warned the boat, which fled and that the boat had self-destructed after being chased for about an hour.  

The article states that 'Highly-placed government sources, however, said the intelligence had no link to terrorism, and made no reference to any threat to India' but the fact is that the government release made no claims of terror links in the first place, people from the government only opined later that it was a likely terror plot. The article proceeds to provide assertions made by a senior Gujarat Police official, three naval officers, and local fishermen but perplexingly none were named. The only sources that were named were the head of the Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum and the head of the Porbandar fishing boat owners’ association, Narsibhai Jungi Jadeja, who said that “surprising that nobody saw anything because of a fire at the night would be visible many nautical miles away”. But the release clearly says that the pursuit continued for more than an hour meaning that the boat was far beyond the range of sight.  The important parties that needed to go on record are Indian Government officials, the local police in Porbandar and the coast guard but that didn’t happen. 

The article also disputes the weather conditions cited in the government’s release based on ‘open-source meteorological data’ but fail to provide a link to so that the reader could verify these claims.  The article speculates that the passengers on the boat were most likely ‘small time smugglers’. But that theory fails as smugglers would have rather submitted themselves for inspection than self-destruct.  The self-destruction and the attempt to evade the coast guard certainly suggest that something dangerous was afoot.  This was picked up by the international media and we saw articles such as this. But surprisingly, the article was lauded by many in the news.  But many in social media and some in the mainstream expressed their reservations

The job of our news media is to report about anything that occurs without hesitation. But with this freedom comes the duty to ensure the completeness and correctness of all information put out. This precaution should be turned up to eleven in matters of national security. This is not to say that the truth must be suppressed just that verifications should be more thorough than usual.  The rules of sources are also very simple, if the sources are not willing to go on record and be named it is irresponsible to carry a story that is entirely based on those assertions.  

It is also important that unless the journalist had iron-clad evidence that suggested that this was a cover-up or a botched-up operation, it is wise to not breathe a word of opinion. There was all the time and freedom to investigate and then report if any discrepancies are found. The reporter and organization must be mindful that one careless move can quite easily weaken the country’s position and benefit the enemy.  There can be no position of neutrality here; the journalist must understand the potentially serious consequences of his action.  Subsequently articles with named sources from highly placed government officials such as this , this and this seem to suggest that the terror angle is a dangerously likely possibility.

It is no secret that Pakistan has shown very little intention to cooperate with India in the war on terror. The culprits of 26-11 continue to go unpunished and openly spew venom and issue threats against us with impunity.  Pakistan has regularly indulged in firing over the border that claims the lives of innocent civilians and brave soldiers.  When 26-11 occurred many in Pak refused to accept that the incident ever occurred claiming that it was an ‘inside job’ i.e. the Indians brought the attack upon themselves, sadly many even in India subscribe to this preposterous theory.  For our own media to speculate without a shred of evidence about the boat creates the false impression that India is either a crying wolf or that we purposefully used excessive force that resulted in the loss of innocent lives.

But what is the real reason behind many of these reporters almost dismissing the terror links without any serious consideration?  Is it their dislike for the current government? Is the urge to be the first to opine? Is there some other reason?  If it is established that what was put forth in the article is true, the journalist and the paper must be lauded for managing to find so much despite so little being put our if however it is established that this was indeed a terror plot, the journalist and organization must do a total retraction of the story and strict punitive action must be taken. Also, an independent inquiry needs to be put in place for to comprehend the motivations behind their actions.

Nobody, including the journalists, can claim to know for sure what occurred on the night of 31 December 2014 for the reason that nobody but the coast guard and the boat passengers were present.  In such situations the benefit of doubt must be given to the Coast Guard unless hard evidence suggests otherwise.  They should be lauded for being alert and in the process averting a possible terror attack on our nation.  Like a court of law it is important that there is a presumption of innocence until guilt can be proven.