The way history is told often depends on who holds the pen, and it is important to question whether we, as readers, are receiving an unbiased truth or a narrative crafted by those in power. As Western media today shapes public opinion on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is crucial to reflect on past historical coverage and understand the mechanisms through which media can shape perceptions of justice and oppression. This article aims to draw a parallel between British media's portrayal of Indian resistance during colonial times and the current Western media coverage of Palestinian struggles, inviting readers—whether from the West or India—to open their minds and question whether they are on the right side of history. By exploring these similarities, we challenge the possibility of media bias and brainwashing, just as the British press justified violence and distorted Indian resistance, prompting us to reconsider the stories we are told and the consequences of uncritically accepting dominant narratives.
Drawing parallels between British colonial-era newspaper coverage of Indian resistance and current Western media headlines about Palestinians, particularly in the context of the violence in Gaza over the last year, reveals striking similarities in the portrayal of resistance, the justification of state violence, and the framing of events in a way that reflects the interests of power structures.
Here are some key points of parallelism:
1. Framing of Resistance as Terrorism or Rebellion
British Colonial India: Headlines during the Indian Rebellion of 1857 or movements like the Quit India Movement typically framed Indian resistance as acts of "savagery" or "terror." Indian fighters were often labeled as "mutinous" or "rebels," justifying British military retaliation.
Example: "Horrors of the Indian Mutiny: British Men, Women, and Children Slain by Savage Sepoys" (The Times, 1857)
Example: "Indian Agitation Defeated with Necessary Force" (The Times, 1942) during the Quit India Movement.
Current Western Media Coverage of Palestine: Western media often frames Palestinian resistance, especially by groups like Hamas, as terrorism. The focus is on the violent actions of Palestinians, rather than addressing the broader context of occupation, displacement, and human rights violations.
Example: "Terrorists Launch Attacks from Gaza, Israel Responds" (The Washington Post, 2023)
Example: "Hamas Rockets Target Israeli Civilians, Sparking Retaliatory Strikes" (The New York Times, 2023)
In both cases, the narrative diminishes the legitimacy of resistance against oppression, focusing instead on the violence perpetrated by the colonized or occupied people.
2. Justification of State Violence as Law and Order
British Colonial India: When the British military responded to Indian uprisings with brutal force, headlines framed these actions as necessary to "restore order" or "defeat rebellion." Massacres like those in Cawnpore or Amritsar were justified as keeping peace and maintaining control.
Example: "Riot and Rebellion in Punjab Quelled by Strong British Response" (The Daily Telegraph, 1919) in response to the Amritsar Massacre.
Example: "General Dyer Saves the Empire in India" (The Morning Post, 1919) following the same event.
Current Western Media Coverage of Palestine: Israeli military actions, even when they result in high civilian casualties, are often portrayed as legitimate acts of "self-defense" or maintaining "security." The disproportionate use of force is downplayed, and the state's narrative is often accepted at face value.
Example: "Israel Retaliates Against Rocket Attacks with Precision Strikes" (The Guardian, 2023)
Example: "Israel Acts to Defend Itself from Terrorists in Gaza" (BBC, 2023)
In both contexts, the occupying or colonial power's violence is framed as lawful, necessary, and restrained, while the violence of the oppressed is portrayed as illegitimate.
3. Dehumanization and Erasure of Civilian Suffering
British Colonial India: British headlines frequently dehumanized Indian revolutionaries and minimized or ignored the suffering of Indian civilians under British repression. Coverage of massacres, like the Amritsar massacre, downplayed the scale of violence against unarmed civilians.
Example: "General Dyer Saves the Empire in India" (The Morning Post, 1919) during the aftermath of the Amritsar massacre.
Current Western Media Coverage of Palestine: Palestinian civilian casualties, including children, are often underreported or euphemistically described. The suffering of Palestinians living under siege, blockade, or in refugee camps is rarely the focus. Instead, the narrative frequently centers on Israeli security concerns.
Example: "Civilian Casualties as Israel Targets Hamas Strongholds" (CNN, 2023)
Example: "Palestinians Caught in Crossfire as Israel Defends Against Rocket Attacks" (Reuters, 2023)
In both cases, the suffering of the colonized or occupied people is marginalized, with greater emphasis placed on the security or emotional toll on the colonial or occupying power.
4. Avoidance of Addressing Root Causes
British Colonial India: British media rarely addressed the systemic causes of Indian uprisings, such as economic exploitation, cultural suppression, or lack of political representation. The focus was almost entirely on the violence itself, not the reasons for the revolt.
Example: "Indian Agitation Defeated with Necessary Force" (The Times, 1942) during the Quit India Movement.
Current Western Media Coverage of Palestine: Similarly, Western media often fails to deeply explore the root causes of Palestinian resistance, such as the long-standing occupation, illegal settlements, the blockade of Gaza, and the denial of basic human rights. The emphasis remains on specific episodes of violence, rather than the decades of systemic injustice.
Example: "Cycle of Violence Continues in Israel-Palestine Conflict" (The Wall Street Journal, 2023)
In both contexts, the media often neglects to examine the structural and historical factors that lead to the resistance, focusing instead on the immediate violence.
5. Portrayal of the Conflict as 'Uncivilized' or 'Incapable of Self-Governance'
British Colonial India: British newspapers often portrayed Indians as incapable of self-governance, using uprisings as proof that India needed British control to maintain civilization and order.
Example: "India in Turmoil: British Administration Under Attack" (The Manchester Guardian, 1947) during the lead-up to Indian independence and Partition.
Current Western Media Coverage of Palestine: In Western coverage, there is often an implicit or explicit suggestion that Palestinians are incapable of governing themselves, especially after the election of Hamas in Gaza. The violence is portrayed as endemic to the region, without placing responsibility on external forces like the occupation.
Example: "Chaos in Gaza: Can Palestinians Ever Achieve Peace?" (The Atlantic, 2023)
Example: "Instability in the Middle East: A Never-Ending Cycle" (The Economist, 2023)
In both cases, the narrative reinforces a paternalistic view that the colonized or occupied population is inherently violent or incapable of self-determination.
Conclusion:
Both in British colonial coverage of Indian resistance and in modern Western coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is a tendency to frame the actions of the oppressed as illegitimate or barbaric, justify state violence as necessary for law and order, and avoid deeper engagement with the root causes of the conflict. These narratives perpetuate the power imbalance and contribute to a one-sided understanding of the historical and political realities of colonialism and occupation.
Comments