MILITARY-MEDIA INTERFACE A constant effort

Delving on the issue of media-military relations (MMR) in Bangladesh may sometimes be seen as an acknowledgement of the existence of a state of tension which is not totally untrue. And such a situation is not exclusive to Bangladesh. Inevitably, writings on the issue will be influenced by which side of the fence one belongs to. In that regard I consider myself in a unique position of having been on both sides of the fence long enough to be able to lend more than a modicum of objectivity in my opinion on the issue.

The topicality of the subject stems from the fact that both are important national institutions; and the way the two institutions have related to each other in the past have generated tensions in some instances. However, this is not a recent phenomenon. The history of tension goes back to the days of the Crimean War when the media's exposure of the British debacle in the conflict was instrumental in bringing down the government of the day. The London Times expositions reinforced the truism that, "An unfettered journalist is a burden to the military in the field, anathema to a government at home, but essential to a free society."

But unfortunately, the rueful remark that, "There can be few professions more ready to misunderstand each other than journalists and soldiers", made nearly sixty years ago by a military scholar dwelling on this topical subject still holds true in many countries, even, regrettably, in ours. This notwithstanding the fact that in Bangladesh the hiatus, that had existed not very long ago and which had deepened particularly after the tragic events of 1975, has been reduced to a very great extent. Happily, both the media and the military have come to realise that without reconciling the diverse (but not mutually exclusive) requirements, the nation's progress towards a democratic and egalitarian society will be stunted.

Unfortunately, if the historical experience of the media regarding the 'Khaki' has shaped its attitude towards the military, it is the military's mindset, shaped in the pre-1971 era and even in the pre-partition colonial period, where the military was part of the coercive arm of the rulers, that shaped the military's attitude towards the media.

No one can take issue with the contention that, "The press is the watchdog over the institutions of power, be they military, political, economic or social. Its job is to inform the people of the doings of their institution." However, at times, in its attempt to bring a current incident of national import to the public, misunderstanding might be created between the two. This is perhaps because neither fully appreciates the other's roles. What they tend to forget is that both, in the pursuit of accomplishing their tasks, are driven by loyalty to the same group i.e. the people. While the military is driven by loyalty to their superiors and by extension to the state and the people, the media similarly owes its loyalty to the readers -- the people. And this relates to both during times of peace as well as war. And in fulfilling their respective objective – which for the military is defending the nation from external and internal threat efficiently, for the media it is informing the people efficiently – both must play a complementary role whatever the circumstances may be. And this cooperation becomes even more indispensable in a war like situation where the media becomes an important factor. But regrettably the media's role in our country has been misunderstood from time to time and an aura of mistrust has stood between the media and the military in the media playing its due role during a conflict situation.

To put the matter in perspective, let us take a look at the role of the media in some of the recent conflicts around the world. The outcome of the Vietnam War, whose memory is still fresh in the minds of my generation, was due to the role of the media from its seminal stage to the end, an end to an unpopular war which, had it continued, would have added to the cost to the country in terms of human lives and money.  

More recently, exposure of the Abu Gharib torture effectively put an end to a programme called "Copper Green," directly approved by Secretary Rumsfeld, to generate more intelligence. It effectively put a stop to the policy of 'Grab whom you must. Do what you want.' 

And look at the media next door. In India, the media has been vocal in its criticism of the military when needed. Its coverage of the Kargil War is considered by many as a force multiplier, and it has helped expose corruption in the Indian military. On the contrary, look at the Pakistan media which has played an acquiescing role with the military - from the time of the 1971 Bangladesh War of Liberation where the media in effect became a party to the Pak army atrocities in Bangladesh by assenting to keep the public in the dark regarding the mass killings, to its role during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It is not difficult to assess which of the two media has served the interest of their respective country better.

It should be borne in mind that the military is not a holy cow nor is the media beyond reproach. The moot point is to work out modalities to help each other fulfill their respective roles without either losing its distinctive characteristics.

MMR is a two-way street and, more importantly, the military must understand that the media is the military's main conduit to the public.

........................................................

The writer is Associate Editor, The Daily Star.