Reportage of eviction points to growing urban-rural divide

Each time a scandal breaks out, I despair. I watch the media go into a tizzy with over-the-top coverage, silly sound bytes, and everything but the actual story.

The crucial questions are never asked, let alone answered. Why was only Suresh Kalmadi picked up in the Commonwealth Games scam and not a host of other Congress bigwigs who were also involved in perhaps equal measure? Why was A Raja permitted to get away with his loot if indeed he alone was responsible for the way things turned out in the 2G spectrum allotment scandal? Are there some army men who bought flats in Adarsh Society in sheer innocence?
 
More pertinently, the other side to the main stories is never explored. A sentence or two to explain Kalmadi's or Raja's side in the main story is justified as the journalistic concession to fairness. No one cares to go beyond the obvious.
 
This time, though, the media has outdone itself. The Baba Ramdev "eviction" episode has been reported by the print media in the mildest of terms with some national dailies even shying from mentioning some critical facts of the eviction such as the fact that the crowd was lathi-charged. The tenor of reportage has been not just restrained but subdued.
Consider the facts: the state machinery swoops down on an open maidan where tens of thousands of men, women and children are peacefully asleep at night, starts dragging them out, and lathi-charges them. They wake up terrified and flee, leaving behind their belongings, mats and footwear. Some are badly wounded and find themselves hauled to hospital. Their leader gets hijacked and is allegedly manhandled.
 
Is this how we define "eviction"? All that this lot of protestors were doing, whether you are with them or not, is protesting in what they believe to be a genuine national cause. One shudders to think what would have happened had they pointed fingers at any Congress leaders in particular.
 
Yet, few leading newspapers have expressed any words of condemnation, let alone any measure of editorial outrage. The English media in particular has been rather snooty about the whole episode, making it a point to look down on Baba Ramdev's antics for reasons that I suspect have nothing to do with the merit of the story.
 
Sure, he is ad hoc and appears to have reinvented the fast as a weapon too soon after Anna Hazare's triumph. His motives may be suspect and one may dispute his cause and means as well. But the real problem lies elsewhere.
 
The Baba Ramdev episode has brought out the urban-rural gulf in sharp relief. Look at the profile of the protestors: most were farmers -- the community of Indians that never gets its fair share of attention -- and/or followers of the baba, most of whom are primarily northern, and rural, not quite in the same league as the urban IT generation that graced Anna Hazare's causes.
 
The third factor that works against Ramdev in the publicity sweepstakes is his religious garb. He wears saffron and that alone is reason enough to brush him off the pages. Sure, his ill-thought invitation to Sadhvi Rithambara to share the dais could, and should, be condemned, but what exactly is the baba's crime in being overtly Hindu, preaching yoga, and not speaking English? Condemn him all you like, but give him his fundamental rights.
 
There is one more problem with Baba Ramdev: he is naive -- and, therefore, he has forfeited his right to protest as a citizen. He stands no chance against the canny Kapil Sibal whose foxy grin makes the media nervous. For years, the Maharashtra media ignored Anna Hazare because they perceived him to be "naïve". He was ridiculed at press meets and largely ignored. As luck would have it, his stint in Delhi caught the nation's imagination and, suddenly, the media was falling all over itself to invite him to chats and edit meetings and treading on the grass before the camera.
 
I am not despairing any more. I am simply horrified. I had expected to see black outlines, strong headlines and ripping criticism in the national dailies, but few have even bothered to take serious note of it. None pointed out the gross violation of the rights of the protestors.
 
If anything, the media has been more underhand than the government in its cavalier treatment of a sinister act of outrage against our own people. The repercussions on civil liberties will be felt far as it strengthens the government's repressive hand.
 
You don't need to identify with your country cousins to apply fair judgment when a wrong has been perpetrated. If our education makes us casteist and makes us condone a wrong, is it worth it?

— The writer is a senior journalist