I did not know I would be traumatized to this extent. I was neither a victim nor a hostage in the recent terror attacks in Mumbai. In fact I was far away from all this, safe in the confines of my house glued to the tele taking in every bit from each news channel. What happened was insane. But having nightmares about a possible hostage situation where sometimes I am involved and sometimes not, a fortnight after the attacks was even more insane. Why was I traumatized every night with these dreams when not even a close friend or relative of mine was a victim in those 60 hours of siege? Why was this happening to me?
Dreams that persist do so for a reason. It is the mind's way of looking at a fresh unexplored perspective. Maybe what I saw in reality did not add up. There seemed to be some loose ends. Some lingering cobwebs. Something that did not want me to have a closure on this entire thing. As I would wake up each time with a feeling that I could have handled the situation better than what I did in the dream - sometimes as a hostage, sometimes as the police and yes sometimes as a trouble shooter. The feeling always remained the same - that of not being able to handle the crisis deftly.
As it was certainly that in reality. A badly handled situation. We were unprepared, we all know that. And we did pay the price of this unpreparedness by losing precious lives - of not just the saviors but also of the unsuspecting citizens. But we also lost something more. Our objectivity. The media more than usual, as some were victims themselves for suffering bullet grazes and wounds and some FELT they were victims - stationed outside the scene of crime for nights. They were reporting everything - sensitive and insensitive. And in their hunger for breaking news believed all that was told to them. The only thing that mattered was who broke it first. Nobody stopped to investigate. Nobody became the dispassionate and objective voice of reason. That day investigative journalism too was slain.
For a minute, if one plays back all that one saw on various channels and pieces them together, it is not difficult to see that some things really don't add up.
Go back to the last terrorist being flung out of the window of the first floor of Taj. Some channels said he was being pushed out by an NSG commando, some said he was flung outside with the force of the shot fired. Whatever be the version, one simple truth evaded most journalists who in any case by then were nerve wracked - it was a blue body! There was no blood - isn't it implausible considering he was just shot at or came out of a freshly fought duel of sorts?
There are more such untenable situations. Did any one really hear a retaliatory fire from Nariman House's 3rd or 4th floor? All the shots that were heard were those coming from the guns of the NSG commandos! Each channel had perhaps one or two vantage points where their journalists were observing from. What they thought was retaliatory fire from terrorists was actually the NSG commandos' guns from the other side - an advantage a viewer watching 2-3 channels simultaneously had and not the heads of the channels in the studios.
There is more. The terrorists had a clear modus operandi - enter a public place; fire indiscriminately at whoever is visible and move out. And that is exactly what Kasab and his friend were doing, when they were caught. And that is exactly what the terrorists who entered the hotels did. Fired indiscriminately in the lobby, sprayed bullets in restaurants and corridors of the hotel and moved out before the authorities came. They understood the fear paralysis of the people. And escaped along with them on the fateful night from the kitchen doors and back alleys. They left behind the bag they carried to avoid suspicion. In any case nobody would have suspected them or recognized them as everybody was busy saving themselves. So we are still not safe - eight of the terrorists are still at large! Nobody knows where they are or how they look.
Only those who were trapped under the dead bodies were the ones who actually may have seen them in flesh and blood. The rest of the guests in any case were hostage of the situation. They preferred to remain in the safe haven of the rooms on hearing gun shots being fired. All the causalities happened only on that fateful night. If there ever were a post-mortem done on any of the bodies, including the last dead 'terrorist', it won't be surprising if they all show almost the same day and time of death - that of the first night!
So there were no hostages - and I still remember the scrambling news channels went through to claim they were the first in breaking a possible hostage situation. As if any worried citizen cared! There were NO HOSTAGES. Neither in the Taj nor in the Trident. A hostage situation is always followed up by a demand, mobile phones of hostages are confiscated, one or two are killed and shown as manifestation of intent. Why did no channel ever think of calling a hostage expert or negotiators who could probably have thrown light on the probability or improbability of a hostage situation? None of the guests rescued claimed to have 'seen' the terrorists - and again the only thing they had as evidence with them was 'constant gun shots' - which was nothing but our valiant NSG commandos trying to break open unoccupied or occupied rooms.
And that brings me to a sensitive topic. Nobody is a better judge of a hostage situation than those who are chasing the culprits in the thick of things. The MARCOS perhaps realized the speciousness of the situation and withdrew from the scene of action immediately after the press conference. They admitted two of their men were injured as it was a case of mistaken identity! In a terror siege of such magnitude, when there is Mumbai police, RAF, NSG and army - and they remained on the scene of action till the last day, why did the MARCOS withdraw? Obviously, there must be one objective and dispassionate thinker there who thought it is better to save precious lives of his men than keep up the pretense of a possible hostage situation and feed the media and the unsuspecting people a trail of lies.
Who started this? Politicians? News channels? Don't know. But it certainly seems to be a case of what one wants to believe in and continue broadcasting it as news. And when the ever questioning media does not question such basic gaps, then one does wonder whether there is a miasmic enmeshing of the fourth estate with the first and second to make a fool of the third!! Has anyone asked for a follow up post-mortem report on the terrorists who were claimed to be killed - of whom we were only shown the pictures a week later? Where was their investigative streak then? Or is the media just plain dumb?
For they are doing it again. They are again not connecting the dots and doing an investigation. Why else can't they see what they are being fed again in the name of breaking news? When Obama says India is a sovereign country and has the right to defend itself, the press and polity get orgasmic on the 'support' Big Brother is finally showing. Why can't they see that these are little flashes surreptitiously thrown by the US to conflagarate a war between India and Pakistan? How else will US economy recover but by creating a new Iran-Iraq in India and Pakistan? Does not our media know that US has started its troop withdrawal from Iraq and they could be looking for a new Vietnam which they can reduce to a warn-torn economy? Can't they connect the dots to the pre-parley statement of Obama on Kashmir? Can't these journalists see what path they want us to take in the name of sovereign action?
It seems that all the estates want to wage an immediate war on Pakistan except us commoners. Each channel and newspaper is talking about the immanence of a war. War has not helped any nation - not certainly the warring ones; but it can perhaps help those nations who supply the arms and look to buoy their flagging and botched economies with the blood of innocent people. Why can't the media play a more constructive role and in the name of breaking news, end up making some by forging a clear, unbiased, objective fourth path - foster change; not fuel status quo.
Recent Comments