NEW DELHI: M.L. Manchanda is not the first electronic media official to be killed by militants. But his death has provoked an unprecedented wave of anger in All India Radio and Doordarshan with several unions coming together for the first time on a common platform on this issue.

The fury of electronic media staffers is directed not just against militants for making Manchanda their victim but also against the government. For this there are a number of good reasons.

The immediate emotional reasons are the barbaric manner in which the official was killed and the fact that the entire episode was torturously stretched out over nine days whereas the other three electronic media officials killed by militants in the past were shot dead on the spot.

In this nine-day interim period between the abduction of Manchanda and his death a massive sense of frustration and rage have built among AIR and Doordarshan staff at the manner in which the affair was handled by the government. Staffers charge that false assurances were given by the government and the police to create an impression that he would be rescued and they feel that the government did not seriously negotiate with the militants.

But the prime target of their anger is curiously not so much the Home Minister or the state government as much as the Information and Broadcasting Minister Aji Panja who they maintain did not exert himself enough as head of the I&B family in fighting the cause of the abducted official. Panjas reply is that he was getting his instructions from the Home Ministry and would have been squarely blamed had he interfered.

Panjas defence has some justification. But union leaders and staffers charge that he and senior media officials were only too content to leave everything to the Home Ministry and did not even adequately show their concern for the kidnapped staffers fate.

They keep harking back to the active role played by Indian Oil Corporation officials in the Doriswamy affair companying this with the fact that the AIR chief went to Nepal rather than Patiala in the midst of this crisis. When asked why only a couple of electronic media officials were dispatched to Punjab Panja said I dont know why.

The new policy guidelines announced by the government for the coverage of militant kidnappings by the official media have also incensed staffers It was in accordance with these guidelines that the appeals for the release of Manchanda by the staff unions were blacked out by DD and AIR even though newspapers did carry them

The staffers point out bitterly that the two electronics media officers who have been released from captivity Ghullam Hassan Zia who was released on May 23 after 81 days in captivity and Bashir Arif the station director who was kidnapped last year were freed ironically by the efforts of other militant groups and not the government.

But there are other long pending reasons for the anger of electronic media staffers Since the killing of Lassa Koul the Station Director of All India Radio Srinagar on Feb.13, 1990 the security of personnel posted in trouble spots has been a major concern for them. It has steadily mounted with the killing of Rajendra Kumar Talib the Station Director of AIR Chandigarh on Dec.8, 1990 and the murderous attack on the then Doordarshan DG Shiv Sharma on June 13, 1991 which caused the death of his driver Gobind Prasad an employee of Doordarshan. With Manchandas slaying coupled with the kidnapping of Ayaz Mir an AIR official in Srinagar on May 25 this concern has reached the bursting point.

As AIR and Doordarshan staffers point out with considerable justification they are far more vulnerable than other sections of the media covering Punjab or Kashmir because they are required to be the mouthpiece of the government as no newspaper is. Newspapers have some protection against militant action because they also give to lesser or greater degrees the other point of view while the electronic media as instruments of government propaganda simply cannot.

But the government has done precious little in the two-and-half-years since the killing of Koul to compensate for their special vulnerability in trouble spots. A prominent example is the demand for group insurance cover for officials posted in sensitive areas has been mixed in bureaucratize and red tape.

Twice under pressure from unions the Information and Broadcasting Ministry sent the relevant file to the Finance Ministry for clearance. The Finance Ministry turned it down saying it would set a precedent that the government would find very hard to follow with a clamor from other government employees posted in the same areas.

The I&B Ministry satisfied that it had done its bit for the cause shelved the issue. But as its revival after Manchandas death proves such demands cannot be easily wished away while militancy escalates. By facing such demands squarely and fairly and tackling them adequately sooner rather than later the government would only save itself considerable aggravation.

As matters stand now the electronic media official posted in such areas or sent to them periodically have no insurance cover beyond that which all employees are entitled to under a central government scheme and comes to something in the nature of Rs 1.2 lakh.

A similar ad holism persists on the question of ex-gratia payments after death and here the matter concerns not just electronic media officials but other victims of militant attacks as well. Rather than coming out with a satisfactory compensatory package to meet such eventualities on a permanent basis the government waits for union and other pressure groups to put the heat on it and raise the amount.

Even when it does so as in the present case it is careful to point out that this is a special case and not a precedent for the future.

Article extracted from this publication >> June 12, 1992