Media manipulation and the case of motormen's strike

The motormen's strike that began on the 3rd of May, 2010, throws into limelight a host of themes that constantly run in Indian polity. As a theme in itself, and also as a perspective to other themes, the reportage that the mainstream media gave this incident is worth talking about. Not only does it speak of the kinds of set-patterns that newspapers can follow in an issue having many power-blocs around it, but it also points out the dynamics of the same power-blocs as they fucntion in society, newspapers being one of them. A look at the coverage given to this development in light of these themes would raise many interesting questions.

Reporting: exclusion

The Times of India and The Indian Express gave the first about the strike only on 3rd of May. This would mean for their readers that the strike was an instantaneous outburst, and that the motormen had only recently given out their demands to strike work. In fact, almost no other broadsheet daily gave us any news of the strike before the 3rd of May. Hindustan Times, on the 25th and then on the 29th of April, though, had reported on the status of the talks between the Joint Action Forum (representing the motormen) and the Railway Ministry and Railway Board. 'The committee was supposed to meet the motormen in Mumbai to look into their demands after which they were to prepare and submit a report within two months. However, the Joint Action Force claims nothing has happened..... The motormen began their protest on January 26 when they threatened to go on mass leave. ' (HT, Apr 25th, 'Motormen's strike now on May 3rd').

Later, 'The meeting on Wednesday, between the motormen and the Fast Track Committee — formed by the Railway Board at Delhi — aimed at looking into the motormen’s demands was unsuccessful.' (HT, Apr 29th, 'Hunger Strike on: Motormen').

This raises certain obvious questions: if the demands of the motormen have been with the authorities since so long (January 26th), why have no negotiations been arrived upon? Secondly, what were the actual fallouts of the meeting between the Fast Track Committee and the motormen? 'The motormen claim the Fast Track Committee members have forwarded the set of demands to the Anomalies Committee, which deals with problems of railway employees. Railway authorities, on the other hand, said, the Fast Track Committee comprising four members who visited Mumbai, asked for more time before submitting a report on the motormen's demands. The committee was supposed to meet the motormen and submit a report within two months starting January 26, when they threatened to go on mass leave. “They [the committee] have listened to the grievances and will get back to the motormen as and when they take a decision,” said S. Mudgerikar, chief public relations officer, Central Railway.' (HT, Apr 29th). In light of what reports suggest after 3rd May, either the Fast-Track Committee and the Anomalies Committee completely disappeared behind high profile ministers and the PMO (who were not, earlier, on any end of the bargain) or probably their use has now started seeming redundant, given the scale on which the strike has affected the people. This means a failure of the formal mechanisms that had been set up for redressal of the demands of the motormen.

More inconsistencies can be spotted in events that unfolded after 3rd May. A report in TOI, May 3rd, page 5 reads: 'Cheif PRO, CR, S C Mugderikar, told TOI that a constant dialogue was on with the motormen.' This, however, is flatly denied by the motormen on strike: ' “A bunch of people are trying to hold the city to ransom. We have spoken to them on all levels, our doors are always open” said a CR official. However, Devendra Yadav from the Joint Action Forum told TOI that till late evening no official came to meet and hold talks with them at Churchgate.' (TOI, May 4th page 3). It seems difficult to understand why a usually sensation-mongering newspaper doesn't harp on this issue. Were the authorities doing enough to bring the strike to an end? Were negotiations with the motormen on strike really going through?


Constituency: Information and opinion

The strike began on the 3rd of May; the most immediate effect of the strike was on commuters. This meant that what had till now been a bargain between an employer company and employees, now turned into a civic issue. As a result, broader public administration and politicians were drawn in and it no longer remained a formalized procedure of deliberation as before, but was now a political exigency on which depended many stakes.

Consider, for example, the immediate reaction of the state-government. The Indian Express, May 5th 'All Aboard' reports: '(CM Ashok Chavan) called a meeting of government and railway officials, saying he wanted the strike to end as the city was suffering. .... The Home Minister called the motormen’s union to talks, took up their issues with state officials and contacted NCP chief Sharad Pawar. ... The Railway Ministry would withdraw the dismissal orders served on motormen (20 had been dismissed). A fast-track committee has been formed to look into their “genuine demands” and will submit a report by June 15. The state too would withdraw cases filed against agitators, Patil said. The GRP had detained 174. “The issues are basically under the Central government, but we stepped in as the strike was causing inconvenience,” Patil said.' A day ago (May 4th, TOI, 'Chavan seeks centre's help to end rly deadlock') the Centre was roped in into this merry-go-round, spelling out how urgent matters had become for the establishment. 'CM Ashok Chavan... called on the PM and Mamata Banerjee for their immediate intervention. .... The PMO expects the strike will be called off by Tuesday morning, but a decision on the demands of the motormen will be taken before June 15th.' It is to be noted that the same party which forms a huge chunk of the parliament at the centre resides in the state legislature too. Among other pleas made to the centre were the demand for permission for “slapping” ESMA upon the striking motormen. This did happen on the 4th of May ('Mumbai local motormen get three hours to end strike', DNA, 4th May & 'Motormen call off strike, motormen relieved', Business Standard, 5th May). It is difficult to decide if it should or should not be shocking that these newspapers celebrate this relief in the same breath in which they acknowledge 170 motormen being forcibly detained and pushed to work against their will. Certainly, the high-handedness of a state-govt backed by the Centre is apparent; what is even more apparent is the sudden and de facto involvement in this case of those who were not a part of the negotiations between the motormen and their employers. Sharad Pawar, called on by state Home Minister R R Patil makes a fitting example of this, if not also the PMO.

If the law stepped beyond the law, little ought to be thought about what those groups did who occupy public space inspite of being outside the administration. Immediately after the strike began, the Shiv Sena-BJP combine started rooting for the motormen, furthering their usual rhetoric about championing the deprived cause. They soon realized that for every motorman in a train, there are a thousand passengers, and their stand quivered. MNS was slow to react, and when it did, it placed the hoop in the more profitable Mumbaikar, the one in large numbers. 'Initially, both (Shiv Sena and BJP) had supported the strike and the motormen’s “just demands”....The union, however, withdrew after instructions from Sena chief Bal Thackeray, who said citizens could not suffer even if the motormen’s issues are genuine......Raj Thackeray (of the MNS) opposed the strike and asked motormen to resume duty by evening to prevent further inconvenience. He threatened an “MNS-style” agitation against them otherwise.' ('All Aboard', IE, 5th May). Other popular groups for commuter welfare have also participated actively in bringing back the motormen to work.

The fourth estate, in this case, has played a rather dubious role. If one were to look at the information and points of view presented, one would find a boggling similarity: it is as if the same reporter wrote for all the newspapers. Here are some examples: ('Mumbai motormen call off strike', May 4th, IE) 'After holding the city to ransom for two days, railway motormen called off their indefinite strike'; ('Local train services likely to be hit today', TOI, 3rd May) 'Suburban commuters may be in for a rough ride as a section of the motormen have again threatened to hold the city to ransom'; ('Motormen call off stir after meeting with Maha govt.', PTI, May 4th) 'After holding the city to ransom for two days, railway motormen called off their indefinite strike following talks with the state government today.'; ('Motormen call off strike, Mumbaikars relieved', Business Standard, May 5th) 'Mumbaikars on Tuesday evening heaved a sigh of relief, as striking railway motormen, who held the city to ransom for two days, called off their strike, following talks with the Maharashtra government.'. The pattern for the reports is same: they begin speaking of the inconvenience that commuters have to face because of a few people. Throughout, they keep giving instances of commuters who had varied, though troublesome, experiences, and in the length of the report attribute all of it to the motormen who have struck work. Another point that a majority of articles talk at some length about are the provisions that the MSRTC or the Railways or other bodies have instated for commuters. Ignored throughout is the passive role of the state which led to this strike, though it had seen it coming for a long time. Demands of the motormen are listed, but can hardly be compared to the campaign created to indict the motormen as the cause of general agony. It is important to ask if the newspapers managed to create any useful debate on the legitimacy of these demands or not. Given the preoccupation with managing constituencies- of readers and power-blocs alike- this task seems to have been neglected.

Legitimacy

Another centre of polarity in this frenzied affair was the legitimacy of actions from many quarters: were the demands of the motormen legitimate? Was the body representing them legitimate? Were their means legitimate? And was it legitimate to hold a city to ransom for two days? Most of the questions raised for a quality-check were about the striking motormen. In fact, what is surprising is that not even the parties like Shiv Sena or MNS were questioned as much as their position- as de facto vigilantes- asks for. If this wasn't it, one finds no mention at all of the part of the fracas that the authorities (Railway Ministry and Rail board) were responsible for, or the role of the state in invoking ESMA and forcibly detaining employees agitating peacefully. After all, is it legitimate to hold the right to strike of employees to ransom? Is it legitimate to criminalize peaceful agitations? Is it legitimate to have draconian laws like ESMA invoked during times of strike? What is so legitimate about a 'recognized' union like the NRMU and why should different treatment be meted out to a more spontaneously formed body like the Joint Action Forum (which was supported by an obvious majority of striking motormen)?

The High Court approach to this entire issue calls into question its legitimacy aspect: (Outlook, May 4th, 'Bombay high court slams motormen over strike' ) 'The Bombay High Court today slammed the striking railway motormen, saying they had held the entire city to ransom, which was not permissible....the High Court said "situation in the city shocks the conscience of the court. A few people have held the city to ransom and disrupted normal life by adopting means which can not be permitted".....It asked the motormen to resume duties immediately, and assured their "rights would be protected if they complied with the court's order and "no harm would visit them".' Again, '"Ultimately, the railway has to compensate and they can recover this money from the striking employees," observed a division bench while hearing a petition filed by the Centre on the legality of the motormen's strike.' (TOI, May 6th, 'HC: Rlys must compensate commuters'). It is clear that the High Court endorses the view that the motormen are the culprits and that they should not “hold the city to ransom”. However, does the conscience of the court consider the fact that motormen are, eventually, employees working not for civil society primarily, but for a livelihood? The HC recognizes the role of the railways, in that it lays the responsibility to compensate on them. But in imposing the financial burden of this responsibility on the motormen, are they actually saying that a worker has no right to strike unless he can pay for it?

Conclusion

These are the dominant trends that came through in the reportage that the Mumbai Motormen's Strike was given. On the one hand, a kind of a just-legitimacy was claimed for civil-society, but which, at the same time, forgave the shortcomings of the state and stood short of ascertaining the basic right to strike and negotiate for a section of the country's employees. This pseudo-legitimacy, announced for three continuous days, was meant for a special constituency of people and political institutions, and at the same time helped the state in keeping eyes from their popular constituency away from their doings. What passed around as reporting was actually a properly executed case against the motormen, with a clear tilt of facts and points of view against them. Obvious questions have been ignored and a much needed public debate ignored. One is left to wonder if this issue again is made to fizz out until June 16th, to which date is put a verdict upon the demands of the motormen.

Links of articles referred to:

On the High Court's position:
TOI

OUTLOOK

On the involvement of third parties for political gains
Indian Express

On the imposition of ESMA
DNA

BusinessStandard

Hindustan Times' early reporting on the strike
HT

HT

On the role of state authorities
IndianExpress

IndiaToday

HT

On the ESMA:

Wikipedia

Other references may be amply found in the newspapers pertaining to these three days. These were put up with the special intention of bringing into light things that haven't been talked about a lot.