The study signals a rigorous critique of India’s mainstream media coverage of the violence and conflicts since May 3, 2023, marked by systemic confusion, propagandist texts, distortion and sensationalism.
By Dhiren A. Sadokpam
National Media and the Manipur Mayhem: The Fourth Estate as a Site of Information War is a comprehensive study/report/book published by MAPAAL (Media and Policy Analysis Loisang), Imphal in 2024, that examines the reportage of violence in Manipur since May 3, 2023. It is a seminal indictment of India’s “national” media and hinges on bridging theory with actionable reforms. However, decolonizing media requires not just critique but participatory models that centre the voices of the people with correct historicity, ensuring epistemic justice in narrative sovereignty. This is why there is a need to elevate the polemics over media narratives to a higher level.
The title itself signals a rigorous critique of India’s mainstream media coverage of the violence and conflicts, marked by systemic confusion, propagandist texts, distortion and sensationalism. The term “mayhem” encapsulates the post-May 2023 violence, which national media framed through a lens of ambivalence, reducing complex socio-political grievances to simplistic, one-sided, and polarizing narratives. The book interrogates how media, as a tool of power, shapes public consciousness while erasing marginalized voices—a dynamic resonant with Gramsci’s cultural hegemony, albeit in a different context where supposedly aggrieved groups manage to take control of ideological narratives to maintain power through what this writer would like to call “unholy collaboration.”
Arguments
The central thesis posits that national media perpetuates structural violence through underreporting and decontextualization. Media headquartered in India’s major metropolitan cities frame the Northeast as a peripheral “trouble zone,” reinforcing postcolonial “othering.” This marginalization of not only the physical but also the conceived idea of Manipur aligns with the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas’s eroded public sphere, where media prioritizes sensationalism and distortion over democratic discourse.
By prioritizing warped images and twisted words, the “national” media employs agenda-setting tactics to amplify divisive ethno-based identity politics, overshadowing structural issues like citizenship rights. The same process leads to a reductionist portrayal or stereotyping of communities as either the “aggressors” or the “victims,” reproducing colonial binaries in the post-colonial era and deepening social and political cleavages. Such a state of media leads to ill-informed policies embedded in a purely statist agenda. National Media and the Manipur Mayhem: The Fourth Estate as a Site of Information War, addresses all these dimensions.
Methodology and Analysis
The study concisely uses a methodology hinged on framing theory and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). It reveals systemic biases like selective sourcing (more Kuki than Meitei voices, as noted in the book) and lexical choices (e.g., “killed” implying culpability perhaps). These practices reflect gatekeeping, where editors curate narratives that align with their own understanding of the phenomenon. Such biases tend to legitimize certain truths while silencing others.
The study also analytically examines “skewed victimhood and editorial framing,” as the “national media” disproportionately framed “Kukis” as victims and “Meiteis” as perpetrators, ignoring reciprocal violence. This binary construction aligns with conflict theory, exacerbating social and political divisions. The moral hierarchy of victimhood obstructs reconciliation, echoing narrative theory’s emphasis on storytelling in shaping collective memory.
Misreporting, Parachute Journalism and More
However, it is the section on misreporting and parachute journalism that attracts significant attention. The dominance of non-local correspondents filing over 500 reports within the timeframe studied exemplifies parachute journalism, perpetuating epistemic colonialism. Outsiders’ lack of cultural or political competence reduces the current conflict to reductive tropes, as the study notes (“Tribal vs. Non-Tribal”), inverting traditional centre-periphery dynamics.
In the postscript section, the study also critiques the infamous report by the Editors Guild of India (EGI). The EGI, supposed to be a watchdog, became complicit in misinformation, reflecting an apparatus that aligns with New Delhi’s ambivalence and the interests of a supposedly aggrieved party.
While the “national media” indulges in disciplining public perception through controlled narratives, the study would have been further enriched by critiquing how digital platforms have aggressively deepened the crisis. Though the book overlooks algorithmic amplification on social media—which entrenches polarization despite offering counter-public spheres for voices of rationality—it excels in deconstructing media complicity in systemic biases, selective sourcing, and lexical choices.
That said, such works risk deterministic portrayals of Manipur’s communities as passive victims. Therefore, future reports or books should foreground local agency and community resilience to advance a wider, inclusive vision while holding the torch for an achievable and durable democratic order.
A Note on Collaborative Scholarship
Nonetheless, behind this incisive study lies a profound commitment to scholarly integrity and ethical inquiry. The research team, led by a principal investigator whose erudition is evident in all platforms he has stood, the study’s methodological precision and nuanced take, deserves recognition for navigating the fraught terrain of “national” media landscape with both academic rigour and moral clarity. Their interdisciplinary approach—weaving media theory, conflict studies, and postcolonial critique—reflects a deep engagement with the region’s complexities, transcending simplistic binaries to expose systemic erasures.
The study’s analytical depth is matched only by its empathetic handling of sensitive narratives, balancing empirical and qualitative scrutiny with a responsibility toward sane voices. Such work demands not just intellectual acuity but also courage, particularly when interrogating powerful institutions.
The collaborators’ meticulous attention to detail—from dissecting lexical biases to challenging parachute journalism—underscores their dedication to epistemic justice. In an era where scholarship often risks commodification or detachment, this team’s labour exemplifies how rigorous research can serve as both a corrective to hegemony and a catalyst for democratic dialogue.