Even as Indian Air Force Pilot Wing Commander returns home from across the border, opinion is divided – with some saying it was an honourable move on the part of Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan, and others hailing it as India’s victory.
However, given international political realities, it would be quite naïve to assume that Pakistan’s decision to free WC Abhinandan was unaffected by international diplomatic pressure. It is also reasonable to speculate that India must have made some diplomatic concessions to allay fears among the international community of further escalation and de-stabilisation of the region.
With these diplomatic trade-offs in the backdrop, it has been pointed out, that by beating India to the announcement concerning WC Abhinandan’s release, the Pakistani civil establishment has succeeded in winning the perception war. This perception is relevant both domestically as well as internationally.
India’s Unenviable Position
Having lost the initial opportunity to control the narrative around WC Abhinandan’s release, the Indian political establishment now finds itself in an unenviable position. Domestically, it must thwart the notion that it is being lured to de-escalate and engage in dialogue at the behest of Pakistan’s magnanimity. At the same time, it cannot avoid de-escalation in the absence of further provocation, without international repercussions.
This problem is aggravated for the present dispensation, which has domestically positioned itself as an uncompromising and unforgiving executioner. A government that, in a break from past governments, considers dialogue and negotiations in the wake of terrorism unacceptable.
A government that extols the virtues of military strikes to settle scores and neutralize threats, and revels in muscular display. On the cusp of elections, it cannot afford the irony inherent in the perception that adverse consequences of a hostile military exchange, have been seized upon by the adversary, to sue for peace. It cannot come across as helpless, or even dependent on the international community, while also ensuring the return of its pilot.
What Indian Media & Pundits Had to Say
To some extent, this explains the incessantly aggressive posturing by pliant media anchors, pundits, and politicians in the domestic media. Even before WC Abhinandan’s release was confirmed, news broadcasters set out to build a sensationalistic narrative that portrayed the offer to release the pilot as a sign of Pakistani submission. Instead of a balanced and well researched analysis – something one can rarely expect even in the best of times – TV channels lampooned Pakistan’s offer to return the pilot.
Some anchors and pundits wondered all evening whether India had brought Imran Khan to his knees. Others portrayed the offer as Pakistani ‘surrender’.
Still others, looped footage of the prime minister delivering statements that cleverly hewed together the pilot’s release and veiled indications that India would soon scale up military operations. Pundits and politicians alike, issued veiled threats to further escalate tensions. All this, while the pilot was still in Pakistan’s detention. Politics truly is a tightrope without a net. And our politicians are busy making soldiers walk it.
Truth & Objective Analyses – Main Casualties
Previously, in some quarters, the hope was that India would focus on a balanced narrative that reflected diplomatic restraint after the initial exchange of hostilities. The media would undoubtedly toe the official line in this regard. This hope was not entirely out of order.
After all, a balanced response that doesn’t caricature each and every diplomatic gesture by Pakistan, and avoids veiled threats to further escalate tensions, is not entirely inconsistent with the long-term objective of pressuring Pakistan to cease support for cross-border terrorism. Indeed, it was possible to carefully construct a narrative that de-linked the government’s diplomatic appreciation for the return of WC Abhinandan, from Pakistan’s larger failing, in continuing to sponsor terrorism or making lame excuses to grant them refuge.
But perhaps the war-mongering and drum beating has gone on for too long, and we are too close to the general elections to expect a studious media strategy.
In all of this, truth and honest analyses have – like always – been the principal casualties. In the very least, statements like the one from former NSA Satish Chandra, dismissing Pakistan’s offer as a grudging submission to legal obligations, shouldn’t have been paraded as the gospel truth. Or as a sidepiece to inflated claims of bringing the Pakistani Prime Minister to his knees. Unlike statements attributing WC Abhinandan’s release to fervent back-channel diplomacy, these are more easily verifiable. There is a stream of international law scholars and scholarship willing to be of service.
What the Geneva Convention Says
For instance, the third Geneva Convention, though applicable in the present instance, does not prescribe a time-frame for the return of Prisoners of War (PoWs). Article 118 of GC III simply states that PoWs must be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
In the present circumstances, Pakistan’s offer came on 1 March 2019, before an express or implied declaration by the Indian government concerning cessation of military operations. In fact, the Indian political dispensation continued issuing cryptic statements indicating further escalation. Seen as such, Pakistan’s offer has to be construed as anything but a clear and definite legal obligation. At least such assertions ought to be analyzed.
Indian Media Has Thrown Nuance to The Winds
Whether the offer was motivated by international pressure, or behind-the-scenes multi-lateral diplomatic commitments to de-escalate, or the unilateral search for genuine peace by Imran Khan – or a combination of these – is the moot question.
This is the question journalists and pundits are trained and paid to analyse, research, and answer. These are the answers that awaken Indian citizens to the complex geopolitical realities that invariably dictate the fate of their country’s aggressive foreign and defense policy. It is here that the media can enlighten the domestic constituency and serve a truly patriotic purpose.
But the media has completely forsaken nuance. Nuance is considered a weakness even in the best of times.
Over the past few days, media houses have only added fuel to the fire. Many have engaged in sensationalism, run fake footage of air strikes, presented distorted facts, and rampantly vilified all shades of moderate opinion. Patriotism is the ready excuse for incompetence and war-mongering.
Indian Media Needs to Rein In
But patriotism simply cannot serve as a proxy for unabashedly poor reporting standards and the absence of all restraint. In fact, if anything, the characteristic sensationalism and lack of restraint by this “patriotic” contingent compromised the safety and security of WC Abhinandan, by publicly sharing details he himself refused to give his captors.
As if this wasn’t enough, the Pakistan-bashing, baiting and war-mongering that continued, even when it was known that only a tentative offer of WC Abhinandan’s release had been made, could easily have complicated his return.
It certainly did not contribute positively to his well-being, even if it helped some score points domestically. Now, as WC Abhinandan returns, such journalists, pundits, and anchors would do well to report in a manner that can – at the very least – reflect the courteous restraint, grit, and character shown by him to his Pakistani interrogators in those moments of duress.
(Manu Chaturvedi is a Delhi-based lawyer, Fulbright scholar, and Senior Researcher at Jindal Global Law School, with a master’s in International and Comparative Law from U.C. Berkeley. This is an opinion piece, and the views expressed are the author’s own. The Quint neither endorses, nor is responsible for them.)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)