The recent face-off between Indian and Chinese patrols in Asaphila area on June 26, 2003 evoked considerable media interest and political debate in the country. It overshadowed and almost neutralised the Prime Minister's visit to China, which took place after a decade long gap and, more significantly,
Asaphila patrolling face-off of June 26 was no doubt a tactically important event that required an immediate response at that level (Flag Meeting). Only if that did not produce results, the level needed to be raised. When seen in a perspective and at macro level, however, it did not call for the media hype or a national debate that could affect a sensitive foreign policy issue of the on going Sino Indian dialogue to improve relations. Several journalists and political leaders in and outside the Parliament over- reacted on this incident and hinted at changes in the national policy on China. Was that necessary? Why did that happen?
Much of the blame for this can be attributed to the Government's media policy and its inability to move forward with the times. Despite several positive and negative lessons in the past, we continue to maintain antiquated Public Relations (PR) establishments in most ministries/departments. Except in the Ministry of External Affairs, where an IFS Joint Secretary spokesperson holds media briefings every other day, there are no such spokespersons. Where they do, they are horribly ill informed and decline to say anything without the Minister's approval. As someone has remarked, "Those who know, are scared of talking; and those who do not, talk too much."
The Government must realise that after the Kargil intrusion, public expects information and explanation, particularly when there is any news or rumor of such an incident. On the other hand, with over 15750 km long land borders (nearly one third of that is disputed), and 7685 km long coastline, such patrolling face-offs are bound to take place occasionally. If an official explanation is not given quickly, the incident is bound to be misreported and distorted, leading to undesirable over- reactions. It happened in Machel incident (often referred to as Kargil 2 in the media), where despite good surveillance and excellent combat action, the Army came in for unnecessary flak. Unfortunately, this sort of thing is happening fairly regularly now. The rank and file in the Army is bound to feel concerned. Further, public and political over reaction can make the troops on the ground defensive in attitude and shy of talking or reporting such incidents immediately.
In the given incident, a timely statement and clarifications by a spokesperson from the Ministry of Home Affairs or Defence in Tezpur or in Delhi would have closed or kept the issue at its correct level.
In the Information Technology driven media age, 'every one to keep his mouth shut' will be counter productive. We must modify our policies on the Official Secret Act, adopt a pragmatic information policy, and create suitable organizations in each Ministry/Department to implement it.
*Former Chief of Army Staff. Currently President ORF Institute of Security Studies, New Delhi.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
