'Bulldozer baba', 'Tiger': The uncaring use of epithets

This is undoubtedly Yogi Adityanath's moment. But while reporting his victory, must the media also display a sense of triumph?

"Bulldozer rampages through opposition attack"; "Bulldozer becomes symbol of BJP's mega-mobility"; "Yogi bulldozes caste barriers" were typical headlines on TV channels after the results, all taking off from the title "Bulldozer Baba". Used by Samajwadi Party (SP) chief Akhilesh Yadav as a jibe against the Uttar Pradesh chief minister, the term was turned on its head by the latter and transformed into a campaign theme. The phrase conveyed the image he loved to project: toughness towards the mafia.

But people in UP understood what it meant. The message conveyed by Adityanath when he said "hamara bulldozer chalega" was no different from his "80 vs 20" comment. Both projected the Muslim as the "other". As news reports have shown, Baba's bulldozer is not uncontrolled; it selects its targets, and most of them happen to be Muslim. Select bahubalis' properties have been left untouched.

In case the message was not understood, the CM made it amply clear. The bulldozing of jailed don Mukhtar Ansari's property, he said, had upset Akhilesh Yadav. Connecting the CM's main political rival with a notorious Muslim offender was very much in keeping with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)'s campaign. In their rallies, both the Prime Minister and the Union home Minister described the SP's reign as mafia rule. Which community this mafia belonged to was made clear by their constant linking of the SP with Eid and kabrastans.

Also read: Why is Yogi Adityanath holed up in his 'mutt' at Gorakhpur?

These allusions had also been made during the 2017 UP Assembly election campaign by Narendra Modi and Amit Shah. This time, though, the main campaigner saying this was the political head of the state, who is also a saffron-robed mahant of a powerful mutt, and founder of an organisation known for targeting Muslims: the Hindu Yuva Vahini. Under him, the bulldozer became a weapon of Hindutva. The crowds who went delirious every time Adityanath spoke of his bulldozer knew this; so did the Muslims of UP.

It's inconceivable that the media didn't.

When media headlines extolled Adityanath for "bulldozing the Opposition", did the journalists writing them also identify the Opposition with the Muslim mafia against whom the bulldozer was meant to be used? While that question may remain unanswered, there is no doubt that the other headline, "Adityanath bulldozed caste differences", sent the wrong message. Winning over the many castes who make up UP's Hindus has been the BJP's aim since 2017; their alliances have centred around caste; their welfare schemes have targeted castes who may not otherwise have voted for them. The media is not just aware of this but has, in fact, lauded it as Amit Shah's "social engineering" design. The media knew that the bulldozer of Hindutva did not destroy caste barriers at all; Hindutva was a powerful add-on to a strategy based on caste calculations.

So why did it push the BJP's narrative that their victory showed that caste did not count?

Since the results, victory processions have been taken out with shouts of 'Jai Sri Ram', the invocation that has, since L K Advani's rath yatra, become a battle-cry, one that Hindutva bullies have often forced Muslims to chant. The BJP youth have run bulldozers over cycles, the election symbol of the Muslim-backed Samajwadi Party. Amid all this, you have the media celebrating the triumph of the bulldozer. What would a UP Muslim feel seeing those headlines?

Probably the same as what Mumbai's Muslims must have felt when headlines in leading newspapers routinely used the word "Tiger" to refer to Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray, knowing fully well who his prey was. The English media chose to call Uma Bharti "sexy sanyasin" - as a compliment - even though she shot to fame for her anti-Muslim speeches during the BJP's campaign to demolish the Babri Masjid. At some point during this campaign, the media stopped calling the Babri Masjid by its name and started referring to it as "the disputed structure". It seemed that for the media, its existence as a 450-year-old mosque had suddenly come into question, exactly as it had for the BJP. It was a Muslim journalist who had pointed out this sudden change to me.

What lies behind the mainstream media's insensitivity towards the country's largest minority? Here one is not even talking about popular TV channels which thrive on painting Muslims black. Muslims have been part of newsrooms for years, but their presence has not deterred the mainstream media from showing its affection towards rabid Hindutva politicians. What explains this mindset? And what of the effects it has on Muslim - as well as Hindu - audiences?

(Jyoti Punwani is a journalist)

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are the author's own. They do not necessarily reflect the views of DH.

Check out DH's latest videos: