The editor of the prestigious Indian newspaper "The Hindu" has drawn much flak for his comments on conditions at the Manik farm camp for IDPs which he toured during his recent visit to Sri Lanka.
What seemed to have roused the ire of his critics, most if not all of them identifiable only by pseudonyms, was N. Ram's observation that the "conditions in these camps are much better than what has been depicted, mostly second hand that is without visiting the camps, in western media reports."
Ram has been chastised as being too close to the Sri Lanka Government, a consultant to the administration and with epithets much less favourable.
Besides Ram's observations on his visit to the camp during which he said he met and spoke to some inmates in their native Tamil language, what interested me most was another remark of his which, unfortunately, has not received the attention that it deserved.
Mr Ram has said in his report that the sites he visited "are visibly better than conditions in Sri Lankan refugee camps in India which are mostly inaccessible to journalists, researchers and other outsiders."
He should surely know as most of these camps that have existed for two decades or more are located in southern India from where Mr Ram hails.
This is what intrigues me. Those like Jeremy Page, the South Asia correspondent of the Times of London, whose bete noir has become Sri Lanka ever since he was not granted a journalist visa to visit Sri Lanka and was turned back when he tried to sneak in as a tourist, are based in New Delhi.
They have written carping pieces on the conditions of the camps in Sri Lanka's north mostly based on second, third or even fourth hand information that has not been verified which I would have thought is a basic responsibility of journalism.
 |
| Tamil refugees who arrived from Sri Lanka, rest at Dhanushkodi, about 675 kilometres (421 miles) south of Madras, India. (File photo) |
Jeremy Page is based in India. Has he taken the trouble to visit any of the southern Indian camps for Tamil refugees in recent weeks or ever?
After all he does not need a visa to travel to southern India. Since his humanitarian outpourings have led him to castigate the Sri Lanka government for what he perceives (essentially on hearsay as he hasn't been to Sri Lanka) as appalling conditions prevailing in the Sri Lankan camps, he had an ideal opportunity to visit the ones in India and tell his readers in the UK how the so-called UN guidelines on the running of transit camps are all met on the other side of the Palk Strait and its inmates well- looked after.
One would have expected a professional journalist of long standing (I suppose) to have headed out to the southern Indian camps and reported on them to show how badly treated the people here are by comparison.
Surely Jeremy Page should have availed himself of such an opportunity especially since so much international attention is focused on Sri Lanka's IDP camps. Curiously Page maintains what the late Lalith Athulathmudali would call a deafening silence. Page is not such a novice that the idea would not have struck him.
So perhaps it was a conscious decision to avoid them as he knows that it would confirm N. Ram's assessment that the conditions in those camps that have existed so long, are worse.
Moreover, the Hindu editor says that journalists and others are not allowed into those camps or at best, have rare access. If that is correct, and I have no reason to doubt its veracity, then the attempt by Page and many western organisations to portray the lack of unfettered media and INGO access to the Sri Lankan camps does sound somewhat specious in the light of Editor Ram's comment.
Is it poor journalistic instinct or the fear that the criticism levelled at Colombo would appear hollow that has kept Jeremy Page and other Delhi-based foreign correspondents from comparing the conditions in the older camps?
It might not surprise readers to know that most public complaints against a newspaper have been against the London Times. The UK Press Complaints Commission (PCC) Report 2008 recorded 584 complaints against this once-respected newspaper. The Times was followed by the Daily Mail which had just 92 complaints against it which is indicative of the tremendous lack of professional discipline among Times journalists and the lack of public confidence in this newspaper.
The Times, however, is not the only guilty party. It defies comprehension how media such as Al Jazeera, which in its early days had a more 'southern', Third Worldish approach but has now been smothered by the overwhelming presence of Caucasian staff drawn from western agencies, could see something sinister in the setting up of banks, post offices and other conveniences like shops for the displaced persons.
We know that some Rs 390 million have been deposited in the banks since they were opened in IDP camps. Does Tony Birtley of Al Jazeera expect these persons who have moved from place to place clinging to their moveable life savings to keep these assets under the mats they must perforce sleep on?
While some castigate the government for not providing better conditions for IDPs others are critical when improvements are made and more facilities provided. They even find the laying of concrete floors suspicious saying this goes beyond UN guidelines for temporary shelters.
UN guidelines are precisely what they are-guidelines. They are not set in concrete. One might be criticized for falling behind those guidelines. Surely one cannot be faulted for going beyond the guidelines and providing facilities that are better than expected.
Admittedly there is a lot to be done to achieve the best possible standards. But to view everything that is being done through a prism of deliberate suspicion as though it is part of some deep conspiracy, suggests a mind that sees a rock in a grain of sand. |
E-mail