Marginalization of Dalit communities in Indian Media

Media has the ability to influence society and this power lies in the hands of those who create media content. When the media is dominated by a group of privileged people, the stories and opinions of the minorities are dissolved or never heard. Mainstream media is often seen to marginalise minority communities based on caste, gender, race and, class. Indian newsrooms are seen to be flooded with the privileged upper-class Hindu men in positions of power. But why is this dangerous?

These majoritarian privileged groups will reflect only their interests in the media and the opinions and voices of the marginalised, continue to be suppressed. The news stories which come out of such homogenous media spaces are likely to be void of news that impacts marginalised communities. In mainstream Indian media, close to 90% of key media personnel belong to upper caste communities, who represent just 25% of the Indian population. Whereas, the Dalit community which comprises of approximately 17% has a media representation in key positions of less than 1%. [1]

In 2019, when the Dalit land reclaiming movement which started in 1940 by B. R. Ambedkar reached its peak, with 92,000 Dalit citizens from across 13 states participating in the battle to reclaim their land, an extensive report was published by a prominent media house.[2] However, this report received little coverage from the media and ever since, there have barely been any follow-ups on this movement, despite being a huge citizen’s movement. The struggles that the community faces are related to deep-rooted inequalities in our society are endless. Most Dalit citizens still face harsh discrimination on a day to day basis. In villages, many are still are employed in manual scavenging and their children are shoved into this generational employment cycle and are denied education in schools, where the “upper caste” children study. This sort of discrimination is not less prominent in urban areas, where it is still very difficult for a Dalit family to get housing, despite being on the top of the class spectrum. Within media houses which are dominated by Upper caste Hindus, Dalit journalists do not feel safe to risk “coming out” as Dalit in fear of humiliation and discrimination. This is visible in Sudipto Mondal’s article for Aljazeera in which he writes, “After searching the country for more than 10 years, I have been able to find eight Dalit journalists in the English media. Only two of them have risked "coming out”.[3]

I strongly believe that the increase of Dalit journalists in mainstream media is the only way forward, to include a caste lens in media. Only through a caste lens will media be able to bring about the oppression and discrimination faced by Dalits. The reporting of the 1968 Kilvenmani massacre in which 40 Dalits were burnt to death by upper caste Hindus is one such incident, where the lack of a caste lens is visible. The massacre was reported under the headline “Clashes between Farmers” by the Dinamani newspaper. The media widely reported this incident as a class issue when it was a clear-cut case of caste-based oppression and brutality. Mainstream media failed big time, to see this as a case of human rights violations. It was many decades later when Dalit communities redefined it as a case of caste oppression.[4]

The Dalit community is one among the numerous other marginalised communities, who have been restricted from newsrooms for decades. Their voices have not been heard, their stories will remain unknown, till we bring diversity in our media houses.  

---

[1] Oxfam India. Who Tells Our Stories Matters: Representation of Marginalised Caste Groups in Indian Newsrooms. NewDelhi: Oxfam India, 2019

[2] Gokhale, Nihar. “Dalit Battles For Promised Lands Rage Across India |.” India Spend, 21 Oct. 2019

[3] Mondal, Sudipto. “Indian Media Wants Dalit News but Not Dalit Reporters.” India | Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera, 2017

[4] Balasubramanian, J. "Dalits and a Lack of Diversity in the Newsroom." Economic and Political Weekly 46, no. 11 (2011): 21-23.

How did the Global War on Terror change the way conflicts are covered in the media?

The relationship between terrorism and the media has long been clear. Terrorists aim to provoke irrational fear among large numbers of people to achieve their goals and the 9/11 attacks of 2001 was an incident where they successfully did so (Burke, “How the changing media is changing terrorism”). For the next three days, media houses reported without advertisement breaks on the aftermath of the attacks which sent shock waves down the spines of every person (Kellner, 2004). After, the attack which stunned the world, the George Bush administration in America launched the ‘Global war on Terror’ which used a moral rhetoric to propel it’s “war on terrorism” policies, especially in Iraq. This ‘morality’ was strongly echoed through the US media.

The War on Terror describes a vague enemy, opposes a ‘tactic’, has no clear measure of success and just lifts the problem out of political, economic, and historical context. However, this was never given any light by the media (Reese, 2009). Instead the US media was responsible for propelling moralist sentiments among their citizens. In fact, it went to such an extent that, media reports ceased to describe the policy as the administration’s ‘war on terrorism’ but reported it as ‘America’s war on terror’ (Reese, 2007). The ultimate closing of the loop came when journalists, after having helped brand the policy, labeled the frame as public opinion: ‘the struggle that most Americans call the war on terrorism’ (Hoagland, 2002). The mainstream media in the US privileged the “clash of civilizations” model and established a binary dualism between Islamic terrorism and civilization (Kellner, 2003). This continues to pose serious consequences to the US and the rest of the world as many big media houses in the US continue to follow similar irrational paths during crisis situations.

In opposition to the scene in US media, the Indian media seems to be better at learning from its mistakes. In India, during the 26/11 Mumbai attacks, the media released confidential details while the attack was happening, and this led to a lot of panic. Without appropriate systems and channels of information in place, journalists went by what they saw, what was visible to the naked eye to report to the world. Was it poor judgement of the journalists to release this information? In the hindsight, yes. After these shortfalls happened, the government ordered notices to television news channels. However, with no proper guidelines for the media to report in crisis situations, the media houses were let free without major consequences. While reviewing the failures and addressing new challenges, the absence of a simple protocol was glaring. In fact, it took an attack like 26/11 for both the government and the media industry to evolve new frameworks for coverage. After the Mumbai attacks of 26/11, India’s News Broadcasters Association, came up with a new set of guidelines for the coverage of emergency situations. Though not always foolproof, these regulations have a strong influence on most newsrooms. For the most part, evidence indicates that private broadcast news media in India have complied with crisis reportage guidelines since they were put in place. The government formed better security strategies and developed Standard Operating Procedures (SOP’s) for communications in crisis and the media has learned from past mistakes and experience. Both the government and the media had lessons to learn from the handling of the Mumbai attacks. Since the 26/11 attacks, reportage of riots and terror strikes, including those on the Indian Air Base in Pathankot and an army camp in Uri, has broadly indicated this commitment (Mirchandani, “26/11 and the media: Where were the protocols?”). Baring a few minor exceptions, today, networks in India have become more responsible in the visuals and details they report in situations of crisis. However, the condition of the media in US and in other parts of the world is still disheartening to witness. The role of media in public opinion is huge and is a job that needs to be done responsibly. Hope the world takes notes from the media in India!