5 August 2020, NIICE Commentary 5746
Dr. Gazala Fareedi
Since the beginning of the information and technological revolution, the role of the media has become more profound in every facet of our lives, especially electronic and social media. The influence of media on foreign policy and diplomacy has also been enthusiastically debated and discussed academically and otherwise. Terms like agenda setting and framing have seeped from media studies into the domain of international politics which is positively leading to a broadening and deepening of the field.
The media’s role in the relationship between India and Nepal has come to the centre stage yet again in 2020. Media here is specially referring to the news channels mainly based in New Delhi and social media like Twitter. This is not because other forms of media are less important, but because the national debate is unfortunately centred on media emanating from New Delhi and Kathmandu. The focus here is mainly on Indian media. Tracing its role, the last time media was highlighted was in 2015 when citizens of Nepal had vehemently objected to the manner in which the India media covered the help provided by India to Nepal after the earthquake. #GoHomeIndianMedia had trended on twitter, with the coverage being tagged as insensitive, an over hyping of India’s role, ultimately becoming akin to a public relations disaster for India. If one were to tread back in the timeline, media sensationalism ruled the day during the hijacking of Indian Airlines IC 814 from Kathmandu to Kandahar in 1999 where the media focused only on the security lapses from Nepal’s side to such an extent that many Indians scrapped their travel plans to Nepal. The same sensationalism was also present during the reportage on the alleged comments made by Bollywood actor Hrithik Roshan in December 2000 where he had allegedly said that he dislikes Nepal.
In May 2020, since the virtual inauguration of the link road from Dharchula to Lipulekh (Kailash Mansarovar Yatra Route) by India’s Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, the territorial dispute between India and Nepal became an open wound in the relationship. As the road passes through territories also claimed by Nepal, it responded to this by amending its constitution to incorporate a new political map that included the territories of Kalapani, Lipulekh and Limpiyadhura. Following this, it can be stated without a doubt that the media has played the role of adding fuel to fire in the bilateral relations with their jingoistic reportage. The Nepali media has particularly questioned the journalistic ethics of certain news channels like Republic TV, which used the hashtag #ChinaUsesNepal; Zee News where Sudhir Chaudhary ran the show of the Chinese Ambassador to Nepal honey trapping Nepalese Prime Minister Oli; ABP News, which asked if Manisha Koirala was acting on the tunes of China, among others. Such reportage compelled the government in Nepal to lodge a protest with India, with the cable operators choosing to block all new channels of India expect Doordarshan. Many scholars and journalists are of the view that such reporting seriously harms the bilateral relations. Shastri Ramachandran has argued that the media being increasingly used to target rival parties in domestic politics has now spilled its divisive hate agenda over to the domain of foreign policy. Although such reportage was common for Pakistan, it is now being used also for Nepal and China. Kunal Purohit, argues that such a stance of the Indian media has compelled many analysists to question whether the authorities in India were deliberately using its media to attack Nepal as it becomes closer to China. However, there were also articles which pointed towards the diversity in Indian media/public opinion and urged citizens in Nepal not to get carried away by only one type of hyper-nationalistic journalism coming out of India. The impression of the media, thus, created resonates with James Hoge’s 1994 statement: “These capabilities of modern media to be immediate, sensational and pervasive are unsettling the conduct of foreign affairs”.
In the domain of foreign policy, the question then becomes the level of power that the media has in influencing the direction of these relations. The theoretical discourse on the relationship between foreign policy and media presents certain models which scholars have used to analyse this relationship. Three concepts that gain relevance here are, first, the Vietnam War Syndrome; second, the CNN Effect and third, the Manufacturing Consent Model. The term Vietnam War Syndrome came into the picture at the end of the Vietnam War when it was argued that one of the reasons for the United States pulling out of the war was the reportage provided by the media. The images of wounded and dead American soldiers played their part in changing public opinion against the continuation of the war. The second term, the CNN Effect, came to the forefront during the undertaking of two humanitarian interventions: ‘Operation Provide Safe Haven’ during the first Gulf War in Iraq in 1991 and ‘Operation Restore Hope’ in Somalia in 1992. The contention was that the media reportage had played a significant part in influencing governments to undertake both these interventions. The two concepts render the media an independent powerful role in influencing foreign policy decisions of states. The last is the Manufacturing Consent Model by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky. This model does not give the media a totally independent status, but rather argues that powerful interests in society control the media through finance and ownership. Their interests go on to decide news worthiness and framing strategies.
Considering these concepts and the complexity of the varied media dynamics, it cannot be supposed that only one of these concepts is operating at given time. But whether the media has been acting independently or dependently, in matters of foreign policy, it does not have as much power to influence and direct foreign relations. Until the political class desires a certain foreign policy goal with a general consensus among all the political parties, no policy initiative can be implemented or withdrawn by just the virtue of being supported/opposed by the media. Until and unless there is a strong political group/movement supporting the same, the media on its own cannot impact foreign policy.
The same is true for relations between India and Nepal. If there is policy certainty among the political class, then no amount of media vitiating the atmosphere can make the government change its course. This is not to absolve the media of its responsibilities of maintaining basic dignity and respect while reporting on sensitive issues, as they do play an important role in formulating public opinion. If the media takes on a nationalistic stance on any side, it will create a ripple effect on the other side. This will force one to question whether there is any space left for a neutral and ethical media anywhere in the world. But more importantly, a high level of discourse of politics and speech has to be maintained by important people in the government on either side of the border for meaningful diplomacy to take its course.
