 And now, ladies and gentlemen, we are moving towards the last session for the day that we have, and this is one of the most interesting sessions that I have been personally waiting for. Now we're talking about the perils of reporting from a war zone, and it's truly an honor to introduce the panel to you. These are the faces that have given us the news that really and truly matters in the moments that are the most difficult to do so. And with that, I would like to introduce the panel to you. We have Shweta Singh with us, senior executive editor, special programming at Aaj Tak. We have Manit Malhotra Consulting Editor, News X, Mr. Karan Bhatia joining in strategic business consultant at Exchange for Media. Gaurav Si Savan, senior executive editor, India Today and Aaj Tak, Meghna Sharma, assistant executive editor at News X. Abhijeet Aayir Mitra, well-known author and media expert, it's an honor to have him. And of course, the moderator, the lovely face synonymous with the Exchange for Media, Mr. Rohil Amin, senior editor at Exchange for Media. So that's your panel, and I'm absolutely thrilled to introduce this to you. Rohil, all yours. Thank you so much. Not so lovely. But thank you so much for these kind words. Well, we have a very interesting topic, which we don't often talk about in media. And we have people here who have covered news, went all the way and seen the real danger, face the real danger brought the news to us. So we have with us, you know, I mean, I want to start with you, Gaurav, since you are here. And bring in Shweta after that and Abhijeet. Gaurav, give me a sense of when it comes to reporting a war, Indian channels versus the other global media. Where do we stand in this, you know, because is it just an eyeball game for us still? I would really, or is it something which is, you know, humane, more driven by, you know, bringing out the real facts and agony of the people. Thank you very much Rohil for having me on this very lovely panel. For us, it's not about eyeballs for us. And I can't talk about the India today group and Ajta because whether it's this conflict in Ukraine or the situation in Ladakh or counter terror operations in Jammu and Kashmir. For us, it's not about eyeballs. It's telling a country about what's happening on ground and reporting it as factually as accurately as possible in the fog of war. And that's exactly what Shweta and I have done in Ukraine in Ladakh in Jammu and Kashmir. That's been our effort throughout. And, you know, whether I was reporting from Libya or from Egypt or from Lebanon or from Iraq, the effort was always to get to the heart of the story, get to the bottom of the story, get your ground realities, get our viewers and get our cameras up close, you know, so our camera persons, they would film. If I'm shooting from, if I may, like some other instances with some journalists, you know, from hotel balconies or receptions or lawns, we would get to Kharkiv, we would get to Mahiopal. You know, we would be in Bhucha and Irpin while those bodies were still there, while that shelling was still on to get to that story and know nobody thinks of eyeballs at that time. You only want to bring the story to your viewers Rohil. Shweta, your thoughts on this, if you heard my question. So, I would just say that the Indian media was much more bold than all of the international media. Number one, I would say, we did not have bulletproof jackets because like Gaurav went there when the war hadn't started. When we, when I went there, we had to walk on foot. So, I already had a 30 kg load on my back walking for four kilometers till I could get a taxi to move around in Ukraine. So, bulletproof was the last of our priorities. So, we were without bulletproof and yet we ventured into areas where there was active firing and shelling. So, unlike the international media, which was mostly in Lviv, the area where all the embassies were. So, I would say that, yes, the Ukraine war was the first time when you saw, I would often joke that it's almost like the Vijay Chowk of Indian media. All of Indian media is there at Vijay Chowk and all of Indian media was there in Ukraine. And I think all of us, at least 99.99% of us knew that we were representing our country and when we were venturing into these areas, because India being neutral, our stand as a journalist, whether we were covering it from Ukraine or we were doing it from Russia was completely neutral and we were the bravest journalists, I think, all across the world. Every single Indian journalist was the bravest. Yeah, I mean, not caring about bulletproof, Jackas tells the story itself. If I had it, we would definitely wear it. That was just because you have to choose what you've got to put your batteries, your tapes, your cameras, and bulletproof can wait. We got it later. We were issued bulletproof jackets and keys. Right. Before I bring in Vijit, which I'll do at the end because I have wanted you to sum up what they say. I will have also Mr. Karan Bhatia asking you a couple of questions, you my co-moderator. Megha, at this point, your thoughts of Indian journalists covering war internationally. How evolved have we become in your view? Absolutely. I definitely agree with Gaurav and Shweta and while I was covering from the New Studios and my reporters were out there covering the entire conflict zone, there were a lot of challenges, there were a lot of problems that these people had to face. I would definitely have to say that we, the Indian journalists, the Indian reporters, were at the top of our game. And like Shweta said, it was a neutral ground on which we were actually covering that entire, it continues to go on even now and it has been more than a month. And then the big question about the conflict that the Western media portrays when a Ukraine-Russia conflict happens, versus what Russia continues to say or the Russian allies continue to say. So it was important for the Indian media to put up its stance, which was a neutral stance and that gave us a lot of commendability from international media as well. I think perhaps the first time around, there have been international news channels, international media houses that have been looking at Indian media and Indian journalists who have been getting into the trenches, figuring it out by themselves and giving us neutral coverage of what actually happened. It was a scary situation. I had my reporters, I had my executive editors who were travelling over there and they were bombing and shelling. That would take place behind their back and they would just have to hurry up and get into their cars, rush and that's a scary situation. And like Shweta and Gaurav said, you would not have those life jackets to save yourself from the bombings that took place. And that's an extremely dangerous situation to be at. So kudos to us, kudos to Indian media to have evolved to a stage where international media is now looking at us and even gaining some sort of perspective as to how to look. And I also feel that we have come of age in terms of not looking at foreign media any longer and already raising a bar and saying that this is us, this is what we are reporting and as much as you would like to tom-tom about you being neutral and you being unbiased, that's not the situation. And here's what the new world order is and here's what our stance is. You know, I saw Gaurav and Shweta go to Ukraine and cover this. And when I saw them, you know, that's when I think every journalist realises that that's what you signed up for. You know, there could be a situation in your life where you will have to do that. Unfortunately for me and Megha, we could not go. But I grew up in Russia. My father was a diplomat. So I've been to Ukraine, I've been to Russia. I know how cold it can get, how nasty it can get and how difficult the terrain is, the language problem, all of that. You know, and the way our journalists were able to handle all of that and not even make break a sweat about it. I think that was a very humbling moment for all of us. You know, you can sit in the studios and opinionate about a number of things. But I think the action is where the war is. And this time around what happened in Ukraine, I think Indian media was very intrepid. It was very bold. I think there were wars in the past as well. When we did not go all out, we did not in fact consider it too important. So we did not send as many journalists as we would have liked to. There were a few channels who did. But this time I saw everybody did it and it was not for the TRPs. I think it was basically, you know, to tell the people the truth. And I think that was a defining moment in Indian media. It's very important to understand that a journalist, you know, he could be an important person in the studio. But when he goes to a war zone, he's vulnerable. He's volatile. You know, he's reporting facts. He could be attacked. We have lost a few journalists as well. In Afghanistan, if you remember when the Americans were leaving, we did lose a couple of guys who were risking their life. So I think it lent a lot of perspective to people like me as well. You know, I have reported in the past, but I have never been in a situation where I had to think about my life at the same time, figure out what's going on. It was a very dynamic situation. And I think it was like a Rubicon was crossed, you know, we covered it. Abhijit here, you know, I mean, your perspective will be different. So as Shweta said, you know, it was like a Vijay Chowk where every new channel was seen. One Indian news channels, you know, have suddenly found, not suddenly, I mean, or they have become now, you know, they go out, they report, not just India beyond that. How do you see this transition? What are your views on it? Is it happening the right way? Your observation on that. Okay, is this better? Okay. So see, there's two aspects to this. First is when you actually go report on the ground during a war, it's different when you're posted out there as a correspondent. See, getting posted out there, being there for two, three years at least minimum would give you a lot of ground context as to what's happening. Whereas when you land up there during the war, it's extremely tactical, you're covering what you're seeing. Now, one of the problems that I realized was when I landed up in Afghanistan. A lot of our trips to interview Taliban and things like that used to get blocked by shelling or fighting or whatever was happening. And the problem there was you'd only see what the Taliban wanted you to see when you get embedded. Like, for example, on this side, Ukraine was very open to having journalists come over and cover everything from their side. Because, you know, when you cover a death, for example, you don't know who's killed that person. It could have been either side that killed that person, but then the narrative becomes entirely yours. You frame this in the way you want. And, you know, if you're covering it, you see that you see only what you're shown effectively. The Russians, on the other hand, did not allow embedded stuff unless your RTE or things like that, which became problematic for them. And I think it's very fair to say that they've comprehensively lost the war. But this is where the editor in the actual newsroom comes in. Because remember, reporting on the ground, you get caught up in the tactical, you're not able to see the strategic. And this is where a great news anchor or a newsroom person compures it contextualizes the raw reporting in a way that would suit his audience and brings in the balance and the fact checking and the analysis. Sometimes it's not even fact checking, it's just analysis. Right. So I think that's war reporting in that sense is technically should be the perfect synchronicity of live on the ground up to date reporting. Plus, the sort of more academic side of a newsroom which is calming things down contextualizing and putting it in the larger picture. All right, academic side of the newsroom. Karan, my colleague is here. He has a question. So, you know, I was following the whole reporting happening out of Ukraine. So as a matter of fact, my wife is Armenian and I was there when this whole Armenian and Azerbaijan war happened. So I know how it feels. So one thing which I always found very, very, you know, challenging was the language problem. The most of you were there on the ground. And you know, when you must be relying on some local resources must be telling you what is really happening then then they're at the ground. So how do you, you know, validate and authenticate the information which is coming to you because since you are, you know, reaching out to larger audience, so that empathy and right information is the key. So I will start with you Gaurav and your view since you were covering Ukraine extensively. So I was there for about two months, a little over two months and in two phases. So initially when we went we were lucky we landed in Kiev that time the war hadn't started. So then we had an Indian translator and an Indian driver who could speak Russian. And we always have the Google translator with you to help you. You know, you don't have to speak English but you're absolutely right. Your perspective comes from the country that you are in. But one big thing in this war was access to information and access to internet. So you would always have the other side of the story. And you know when you're a reporter on ground, you cover what you see, you know, which which often generals describe as worms I view and not the birds I view. But then that's exactly what you're there you're reporting tactical stuff while your anchor in the studio is reporting the strategic stuff they have their guests they have information which is flowing in from multiple quarters including from, you know, Russia, for example, India today and I noticed that we had the privilege of having one of our correspondents not just in Moscow, but traveling with the Russian army in in Mario pool, all the way up to Zephuzia in fact, from the Russian side across Donbass from the Russian side. So we had both sides of the story. You know, Shweta and I would be telling our viewers what was happening on the Ukrainian side and Geeta Mohan, who's still there would be telling us what's happening from the Russian side, but I'm just absolutely right. From that perspective, in terms of Russia did not give the kind of access that Ukraine give into the number of journalists that Ukraine give access to. So, language was a huge barrier. For example, we were arrested or detained by the Ukrainian army multiple times, you know, detain for several hours and we didn't know why we had all clearances, they suspected us to be very close to the Russians because my passport as a number of Russian visas. At one point of time, but then when they got to know that we were reporting and they would cross check everything on internet. They actually permitted us to go to Bucha, much ahead of anyone else. So the horrors of Bucha, which is contested by the Russians. India today was able to bring that out because when we went into Bucha, there were bodies that were still lying on the roadside or in malls or outside homes, or people who are burying their loved ones behind the houses. So yes, language was a barrier because we didn't even have a translator that day. Our translator abandoned us, refused to go to Bucha because life shells were still lying there. So we still went. We almost drove over an anti-tank mine because I was driving myself. We didn't even have a driver that day, but you used a Google translator with broken English, broken Russian. That's how you communicated. If there was internet, you have the Google translator. Brother, I saw you were covering, like you called the visit talk. I even saw the bombing happen during that time. Out of it was for you. I even remember one taxi driver refused to drop you to a next location and you had no choice but to report. I even saw you got up when you were being detained live on there. Yeah. So the biggest challenge, what I personally, because I've been there multiple times, you know, when you talk to the local, they have their own say because it's the law of the land. But, you know, being a neutral party when it comes to India, the information, because when you talk to Ukraine, they have their own perspective and you talk to Russian, they have their own. So I'm sure it must be very tough for you to bring a neutral stance, especially when there is a war, there are a lot of people dying on street. You know, you have to be more empathetic. So I mean, from your view, what was your experience? Especially, I'm sure it must have affected you in some way or the other. But, you know, from a new person standpoint. So when you've got to be neutral on screen to your viewers, but when you are in a particular country, you've got to be on their side otherwise they will just let you move around. So the Ukraine Army never allowed them allowed us to travel with them. Yes, when we would reach their location, they would give a certain amount of access, but it was the civilian areas that were being affected or the military bases were being bombed that we reached and we were trying to. So there were just two sets of words that I got by heart and I would say it with all Josh was Slava Ukrainian, which means victory to Ukraine and give them Slava. The heroes will win. So that's all the Ukrainian that I've learned from Ukraine and I, every check post that I will stop I just sent Slava Ukraine and they let you pass and they all respect women more than men. Gaurav would vote for that. So it was Gaurav who was detained and the only day I was detained was when I was traveling with Gaurav in the same car. So I have that grudge against him, even now. So now what, what we always talk about the beats of reporters and when we see Ukraine now you see a lot of reporters who have not covered defense and were covering the war now I think it's more difficult for them because we've been with armies we we know the weapons because it's almost the same weapons that the Indians use. So we can differentiate a T 72 from a T 90 or a BMP from a tank per se. So that was one advantage that I think Gaurav Gaurav slightly more probably I would rate myself 10% lower than Gaurav. But then yes, we definitely knew what was going on the weapons that were being used the weapons like the anti aircraft guns if they're positioned in a particular way which way should you move. So those were the basic. That was the basic knowledge which helped us in our coverage and also helped us not to go get into the jingoistic area which which is the biggest danger of defense reporting, and in a conflict situation, you can actually go overboard with tanks and stuff. So you know if a tank has been abandoned there could be, there could be some explosives which might be actually harmful so you don't just climb up on a tank and you start doing your piece to camera so those were the things we stayed away from probably probably that's more impressive but yes, so these were the two words that I kept a little bit of some some my name helps me a lot because my name is actually a Russian Ukrainian names with if I say they were very happy while she was with me in Ukraine. As soon as she would say, they would say, oh, so that was the kind of help we could get from the locals who of course considered us part of what would you call a cultural friendship with Ukraine. So, and similarly Russia since your friends so whenever I speak to her, she says that the Russians are very warm to her they're very open to her though, of course restricted, the military access is always restricted. But that was the personal part, I'm friends with a lot of Ukrainians and so is Gaurav. We have those numbers some in the military with who we interact with just to get an update how they are and what's going on. So Abhijeet, I would being an expert wanted to understand take a view on this scenario especially the language problem and the authenticity. So you know what happens is I can give you a personal example in Afghanistan, you know they would always understand Hindi so it was kind of easy very broken bad Hindi. But you could speak to a lot like so for example the local Taliban commander in Ghor. He would just keep singing him these songs between every question and then talk to you and you could get a long speaking. I think the issue is, and it was certainly the case for me, possibly for Gaurav and Swetha as well. Even if you understand the language you're not as fluent enough in the language to understand when you're being spun. And I think the biggest filter for in any of these situations is, other than the sheer fear of death because you never really know when a shell is going to land near you or something. Airstrike bullet whatever is the sense of being spun so for me. To be fair I've never reported in the kind of extreme stress that Shweta or Gaurav have I go to do research not to report. Your senses are always highted you're always looking for cues, you're looking for verbal clues and visual clues the intonation, what's being said to the minders and the people around you and things like that, on what to do. The second thing I found really necessary was to overcome the language barrier is to cross check everything. When you're told something you go there and cross check, or you ask two or three other people to triangulate a piece of information for you, and that usually works out. Now I'm not too sure if that works out in a high stress situation like in say Bhucha or Irpin or any of those places, but more or less. Remember I come from a research angle so it's kind of, I don't have deadlines to meet on an early or minute basis. But that I think usually helps in terms of overcoming these things remember everything's a problem but there's always a solution to the problem if you have the time for it, if, and that's the big if when you're being shared. You know, mega so you know reporting from a newsroom, I'm sure a lot of information is already handy, but if you have you can send some anecdotes or experience, especially because authenticity and when you're doing an international reporting. It's very important that you know you balance it. Absolutely, you're right about that there has to be neutrality there has to be authenticity. And at the same time you have to be up to speed in providing your viewers the news, which is accurate but fast at the very same time. Remember, when it comes to news channels you're actually tracking your competitors as well and wanting to break the news first. At the end of the day, we have like you said are reporters who are on the ground our correspondence are providing us what they're actually seeing the warming and Shelly and there is a tendency to be portraying the one side of the story which is the Ukrainian side at the end of the day like Shweta also mentioned you're actually hoping and praying that you don't end up getting killed over there. Now, and when you are a journalist you're wanting to put across both sides of the story, but when you are in a country that is fighting the enemy which is Russia Russia's is the one that is invaded into these places. And, and these army personnel on the ground are extremely hostile. There have been there were several reports we got a lot of students who are especially Indian nationals who are stuck over there. They were not able to pass from one place to another I think took them weeks and weeks together just to reach to care or just to reach the western part of Ukraine. And some something similar was also being witnessed by other foreign national or people who are of color. So it becomes extremely important to be more docile to those who are on the ground those who are under control at that point of time but then the importance and the personality of the newsroom begin and the editors begins to appear and I being at the helm of affairs when it comes to taking editorial lines as well understand because you have, like you said like I said that there was a there was a more bombing that took place. There were several people dead over there, the Ukrainian side said something else the Russian side said this is all false information so this obviously this propaganda that is being built by both sides now then it becomes for the journalist for the editor to decide. What is right, what is wrong you're going to use your journalistic senses you're going to get to understand. What are these cues what are the people saying what is my report is saying over there what is exactly happening and then put out a calculated rightful stance on the channel for the public to be made aware. And therefore also you, I think you find the risk of then, perhaps turning a certain tide and the number of media channels media agencies that are also accused of doing that and that's why I think it's a sensitive situation that you are at. You have to be true to your job you have to be true to yourself you have to be true to your study and then put out what is authentic what is right without being biased towards one country or the other. And then you understand how how diplomatic relationships work when when the West continues to pressure India over certain things when it comes to the Ukrainian war, you have other things that are happening in terms of a lot of these dignitaries and delegations coming into India. So all this and then the largest scenario all these things play out you take a look at a 360 degree view. And then you put in that perspective from Ukraine you put in blood perspective from Russia you put in that perspective from United States of America, or Poland, or European Union and then you build your story that's that's how you do your, you know, you're doing your story better. It's all in the passive. We need, I mean, you've been in Russia you already mentioned about your experience there. Yeah, especially you know when you think I'm sure you've been there you would have, you know, dead with local people that and you know Russian side of the story was not pretty much active, over into different reasons, but from the, you know, playing a neutral role and considering the Indian Russian relationship, as well as the Ukrainian India relationship. Any, any experience anything you'd like to share from the reporting standpoint, when I went, I mean, from the authenticity again, coming back to the same thing. You know when Russia broke up when USSR broke up I was there, my dad was posted there, and there was a curfew for a week. And I remember when the curfew was announced we were in school. And by the time when we went to school in the morning, everything was fine when we were coming back there was a curfew. So instead of buses we could see tanks we could see the militia that's what you call them there. There was a lot of army personnel on the road, and that's the closest I would ever be, you know, to an active ground military situation, something that Shweta and Gaurav are extremely exposed to. I speak Russian fluently so you know when you speak Russian, you kind of also understand what the expect from you over a period of time so I know how Russians think. But what I was talking about and what I was reading about in the western media, it was quite opposite of what Russia is really like. You know, so it was a conflict in my heart and my head also as to what I'm assimilating and what I have seen in the past. You know there was a fight between that but as an anchor you know you have this tendency you have this disposition to get carried away by a narrative which is popular. I think in India we stayed away from that or sometimes anchors also try and extend what the government feels about this, you're getting me. So I think that's also a dangerous path at times which most of our anchors I speak for everyone did not take you know there was a lot of neutrality in what I saw. And at the end of the day, you know understanding Russian Ukraine is not an easy job, you know the complexities between these two nations are very, very profound. What we are perhaps looking at right now is the tip of the iceberg, you know there was no Moscow of 200 years ago, but there was a Ukraine, there was a cave 900 years ago. A lot of people don't know that Russians feel that you know they own Ukraine, just because of you know the kind of nuclear power that they have but it's I think it's the other way around if you look at it traditionally and culturally is the Ukrainians, who have always had an edge in terms of you know the Ruski pride. So I think it's very, very difficult to tell who's right and who's wrong, but just the way India is, you know, there's a lot of mud slinging against India in the Western media there was a lot of unnecessary mud slinging against Russia also in the media. And I think we at News X and you know all my honourable panelists here as well, they stayed away from you know going political, we were all apolitical, we were just trying to show things and talk about things on the ground. I have friends in Russia who are Russians, I have Indian friends in Russia who are married to Ukrainians, you know I have Ukrainian friends who are married to Indians. So what they feel and what they say is absolutely in contrast to what we have been saying and talking about you know the Russians don't care about this war. They didn't want it basically when I say they don't care about it. It was a decision by an autocrat and they are just paying the price for it now so the Russians did not want it. I think it's Putin's ego which is at war and a lot of people are just you know paying the price for it and I think these are like two cents on that. Rohail, I went over to you, I think we lost Rohail. He's not there. I think we lost him. So I'll quickly move on to my second question then I'll ask Rohail. Rohail are you here? So I'll ask you got a you know considering in the last two years there was a huge issue, two very you know important discussion happened on the global diaspora. Rohail you would like to take it or should I move on? Okay, perfect one second sorry. All right so Gaurav to you my question you know there's also people are you know they were on social media especially critics they said they were worried the way we portrayed the war they were dramatic headlines we got overboard. Mahayud you know we use a lot of such words how do you respond to them? So Mahayud it is it's a huge war it's it is a big war and it is escalating and God forbid it may escalate further. Will it become the third world war? Well economically if you look at some of the parameters of what is a world war the beginnings are already there in terms of divisions in camps economic sanctions being imposed. So some of those steps are being taken in case Sweden and Finland do join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization then you will see an escalation and it wasn't Mahayud happening but it was Mahayud's aahat is what most people seem to indicate that are we heading towards a world war. The western media also said that but as Shweta said unlike a lot in the unlike many in the western media the Indian media wasn't safely in Leviv. The Indian media was in the heart of action and traveling not to say that the westerners weren't because look at the fatalities unfortunately that have happened they happened in Irpin and Bhucha in Kiev and the western media that was reporting right in the heart of the story. So you know one yes there is escalation was there exaggeration well that's an editorial stance that happened in Delhi but were there killings look at what was happening at Irpin look at what was happening in Bhucha. Look at the way people were massacred and they were you know so we wouldn't know until an international investigation revealed and that is where I said the Indian media was very neutral. While President Zelensky did say that people were caught and killed and they put out some pictures Indian media kept saying that let there be an international investigation for facts to come out the bodies that I saw and I did see a large number of bodies in Bhucha. But a number of them appeared to be shrapnel injuries, people traveling in cars, their cars shattered, and then police killed. Did I see very close bullet injuries. In some instances, we did see bullet injuries, but not the kind that the government had described torture chambers, all of that, perhaps the Ukrainian media had better access than we. In Ukraine and this was something information flow through the government in Ukraine was restricted to those who actually echoed their line to a very large extent. They were taken on tours. We were on our own we were flying solo, you know, driving from one city to the other, not under any government escort. We could make a lot of personal friends who came, who are very very helpful in difficult situation that took us to the front lines with them. For example in Mario poll, we were taken right to the frontline from where we could see the Russians across. And this was just before the conflict had actually broken out in the real sense of the conflict artillery duels had started rockets and missiles were being fired, but thanks the armor movement hadn't taken place with them. But for the Western media, they have access to government guiding them for the Indian media, we were doing a lot of our work on our own through contacts and not traditionally through government appointed fixers. All right, right. Shweta. Also, you know, one is this, did we get carried away at times, you know, when we look inside. Also, it's a new phenomenon, you know, from looking from within and now outside. But again, our reports, you know, carry a lot of the habits that we have reporting inside internal packs. Do you think that is true. So, I would just like to make a comment first because, you know, when you're working for television you really have time for yourself, leave alone, get to know people from other channels so I would like to say that Abhijit sir of course I keep reading his views on social media so I'm fairly acquainted with him but make I would like to compliment which is very much short. And beneath I wish I had spoken to you before I went to Ukraine you've got such a good experience of having lived in Russia. So it would have added to my perspective. So it's a it's a it's a great forum right now. Yes, we do go overboard I wouldn't I wouldn't like to sound apologetic also for that, because media in India is completely different from the rest of the country. And by the way, I have two three videos that I showed, I shared with Gaurav of international media doing walkthroughs and these two cameras in a way which often Indian media is blamed for. In fact, that that lady from Greece was who actually out shouted the Indian journalist when doing that. That's a world record. Yes, the, the, the worst of the Indian media. She was worse than that I can show it to you later. So yes we went overboard at times when you know there was there was information coming in from so many sources Britain's leaking some reports from Russia and saying that there is going to be a nuclear war and people. I mean, you tend to get eyeballs when you talk of the worst. So yes, we have been we can be blamed for going overboard at times. Perhaps this was the first war that was being covered at such a level. I mean, there have been many conflicts over the over the years but nobody, none of the walls have been counted to be the next step for a world war three. So, this time it was completely different and I think we will mature as we move on. There were a lot of times when I used to fight off. Discussions when should we should we be talking about the nuclear war or not. But yes, if there are reports of some countries and if you if you attribute it to that particular report, then you can say that but we'll definitely take a few lessons from this coverage. Thanks, Shweta. I mean you've been very frank about it and candid about it. What does it tell you about the way Indian media is now covering international issues. Do they have this hangover of the way this report international internationally. Do you see a lot of hangover of what they do within the country. And what is the next stage you see for the Indian media as far as international reportage is concerned. Do you think they will continue to get sensation more over dramatized you know do you think that is going to stay or it's going to boil down to more nuanced coverage of the war. The thing is, for me, reportage is a very culturally relativistic thing. You know, each reporter reports the way a certain country expects them to report. You know, so for example, in Japan you're going to have extremely sweet polite reporting. In America you might not have very animated reporters on the ground, but the context and analysis of the editorial desk would be far worse than some absolute miniscule regional channel with screeching anchors. Essentially screeching like banshees. I mean honestly CNN is unwatchable. I'd any day prefer watching an Indian channels coverage of what's happening in Ukraine to what CNN is doing. I didn't realize this in Gaurav and Shweta just said so. I didn't realize that there were being those guys were being given the VIP tour and these guys were being left out of their own. And this is probably why I will any day trust Gaurav and Shweta over what I see on CNN. Right. So these things are extremely contextual. It's fine for them to make fun of us saying, oh my God, look at the CGI is in this room. It's, it's bizarre. It's crazy. It's, this is a news. But honestly, you tell me what part of CNN reportage is used by Indian standards, the kind of conspiracy theories that are floated out there. No Indian channel even the worst regarded Indian channel would have that on a meantime news program. Right. So these and when it comes to that I don't think animated reporting or screechy reporting is a crime. You know, it's fun to watch sometimes it's entertaining. I would much rather have entertainment over outright misinformation. Wonderful. A current to you over to you. Yeah, we have another 15 minutes left. So one thing what I've noticed in terms of that like setting the context of the discussion, like when the Armenia Azerbaijan war was there for about 15, 20 days, there was very limited coverage which was coming out to the media. Now, especially Ukraine and Russia have become the main pivot and international yellow and the reportage was different. So when you compare with the Indian reporting, what's the international one? What are your views on it? I'll start with you, Gaurav. So Azerbaijan Armenia for me, it was a big story and it was one of the biggest stories on India first because of the context of the nature of warfare, for example, you know, the fact that you had the TV tools that by actors doing what they were to the tanks and the game and the role that they played in this battle. More than the context of the battle that was taking place. It was the weaponry in this battle, which was huge in terms of the way we were looking at Azerbaijan and Armenia. When it came to Ukraine, it was very different because you had about 22,000 Indian studying there there was panic in their families. And you know, especially south of India's. A lot of our viewers south of India's kept asking us, what are you doing about this? Why aren't you reporting from ground zero? And that's where I was packed off. You know, on the 15th of February, we took a decision and 17 that was already in Kiev. And at that point of time, when we travel to a lot of these universities, including the Shivchenko University or the medical university in Kiev, children didn't want to come back. I've got empty number of interviews and children said they didn't want to come back because they thought there wouldn't be a war. Their professors didn't want the children to go back because they said there will be something, but it will not be the way we're seeing it today, but the American media was saying something completely different. So, somewhere down the line, nobody thought this war would escalate to what it has escalated to now, or the apprehension that it may escalate to, God forbid, the third world war in the months ahead with Sweden and Finland now being in the line of Russian fire should be joined the organization. So, we were reporting it day on day, yet going back to the context, you know, we've had a lot of very good guests on our show from Ukraine from Russia from America from England, getting multiple perspectives so that our viewers, you know, and most individuals did that so that the viewers will have a 360 degree perspective, and perhaps, you know, not Azerbaijan, Armenia as much because of Indians present both in Russia and Russia being India's close strategic partner with this special strategic relationship between the two countries. There was so much more interest in in Ukraine, Russia conflict, again, going ahead with in the in the months ahead, this this interest will only increase. Shweta, you know, one thing, you know, when I saw the 24 hours covering, you know, reporting there, and I was also watching RT, I didn't I didn't have access over into multiple regions, but the BBC or CNN or the International They were just a one or two hour, you know, discussion where they were panelists and they were showing videos, little discussion happened. But when it comes to India, this time we played a center stage when we bringing out the real information. And you know, 24 hours, seven, you know, you had your people on ground, there was one reporter also of the station there in Ukraine, then you have somebody in Russia. So must be very challenging. But in your experience, looking at this war and the way it has escalated into and the way international media has projected and the way Indian media brought a neutral stance to it. What is your view, how Indian media is, you know, scoring and how we have changed over the years when we compare ourselves with the international media in terms of the war zone reporting. See, the media has the same strength as the society, it is representing and it is reflecting. So, with India comes a lot of emotions as well. We can't do dispassionate reporting. I'm not talking biased, but emotions in the sense that even if you are talking about a country which you're not on very good terms with, if that country sees an earthquake we still empathize. We might have fought wars with Pakistan, but when the when the attack on the children happened, everybody in India condemned it every single person in India felt that it was not correct it was not right it should not have happened. And I'm not talking about the level of the government but I'm talking about the people so we do not dissociate our passions from anything that we cover. So, about neutrality, I would just like to share an experience while covering in Ukraine, because we were not embedded we were not given that access that other Western media had with Ukraine, but we were in Lviv that day and about two years ago there was a missile strike on Lviv, which the Russians claimed was a military base and the Ukrainians claimed was a civilian area, and that they had lost 35 civilians. I was around looking for a SIM card and for my like unit, and we were trying to find a shock when we when I suddenly heard a sermon going on so I walked in that direction. And I think Goddard had walked in another direction that day and I was walking towards another side because both of us wanted to look for a SIM card. Both of us had to get in touch once we found the SIM card. So what I found instead was a ceremony for the departed soldiers and the departed soldiers happened to be the soldiers. So, what Russia had said was correct in the sense that it had struck a military base, they had lost soldiers and I was in the cremation of the soldiers because I happened to walk into it and not I was not led by some Ukrainian army into an area where they could store some civilian destruction. So that is how we, since we were four teams in Ukraine at that time, and we were all discovering different aspects. This just added to the spontaneity of our reports and the neutrality of the reports as well. And we never shied from saying that they were very limited civilian casualties at that time. At that time, Rajesh Pavaric, who was ex-army, he is still there in Kiev and when he reports, he is not scared that the Ukrainian authorities might have picked him up for actually giving him the truth. If a residential complex has been bombed and there is no casualty, he says, I don't see a single ambulance here and I don't see any casualty evacuation in front of my eye while the Ukrainian government might be saying that, okay, there are 50 people who have died. Similarly, when Rita is reporting from Russia, she does not show their language, she is just giving out what she is seeing in front of herself. Abhijit Sir. Abhijit, you know, you've been, I had experience in Afghanistan and been from the international, you know, story and reporting standpoint. What are your views when we talk about comparison? This is why I said, I think if you look at what Goram and Shweta said, you know that being an Indian having that kind of neutrality, you know, this is not our fight. Nobody was getting emotional about it in India. This was as esoteric to us as, you know, Pakistan attacking India would be to them. So it was, it's much more neutral, it's much more balanced. And let me show you what happened, let me tell you what happened with me because what I depend upon is every time I hear a new story coming out, I try to get it verified through satellite imagery. So we buy a lot of satellite imagery, usually 30 centimeter which you know you can almost tell the ranks on the labels of officers and things like that. The first thing was, first of all, the Ukrainians criminalized any photography on the ground, unless it was approved and authorized, etc. So any mobile phone photography and things like that by ordering people of any kind of damage or military installations is now punishable, which kind of very severely restricted what open source analysis we could do. The second issue was, within almost about seven, eight days into the war, they started blurring the images. They said that our subscription would no longer give us full images of Ukraine, and everything about Ukraine started getting blurred. Except so when butcher happened, we wanted to go in and check the time series images out there. Even the blurring wasn't available to us. Okay, it was almost completely blacked out we were not allowed to see the time series. The New York Times puts out this thing first the New York Times seems to get a story quite wrong. They put out a time series which we think is concocted because nobody else is given access to that time series to see when those people were killed. Because the ambient temperature in butcher was around seven degrees at that time if you extrapolated over the two weeks at by which time the rot of the bodies and things should have set in. The other thing was the way and Gaurav and Shweta would be able to tell you this because they were there, the way the bodies had fallen down. It didn't look like a shooting it looked like a shelling. And for this you know you need to have forensics done as to which side the shelling was coming from we couldn't even see where the shrapnel wounds on those bodies and things were like, even on the video coverage that we were seeing from the ground. Then was very, very problematic where news was being controlled very, very carefully to forward a certain narrative and it was impossible you could not buy images from butcher in a time series, even if you offer to pay extra to these four satellite companies. So there's only four that provide you with imagery the Korean Airbus Planet Labs and I forget the last one's name. Max, Max, thank you. You couldn't get it. Then you know there's also the fact that this is a good thing because the Indian press will never be used to sort of spin a story. You know they're relatively immune from being spun in that sense because if you remember. I don't know how old everybody on the Spandelaar I'm quite old. I'm middle age now. So if you go back to Srebrenica, not Srebrenica sorry Sarajevo, and what started the NATO intervention and that war out there. It was three specific mortar shells that landed in Sarajevo market that killed about 75 people that brought on the NATO intervention. The NATO classified report on that shows you that at least two shells came from the side of the Muslim Bosniak positions in the hills above Sarajevo. The third one was indeterminate. And the reason it was done was guess who was in town at that time Christian Aman. She was there for three days. There was absolutely no story she was getting ready to pack up and go. And voila, she gets a story just in the nick of time, which makes this. I am so glad that our press are not conspirators to and accomplishes in that kind of mass murder that the Western press very frequently is they know it. It's sometimes very clearly done with me too because NATO incentivizes people to commit atrocities with the lines can be blurred and then justify a humanitarian intervention. I'm so glad we don't fall for that kind of rubbish. In fact, quite the opposite. If you remember NDTV they caught a picture I think the machine of us and Jen who caught the picture of his bullet firing, sorry, Hamas firing rockets from a hotel where national journalists were being housed. Right. Now, had we been in the Hamas camp, like Shweta was able to go and verify that these bodies were actually military bodies. Mind you, even now CNN and all the Western press will say oh it wasn't really military we have no proof of that and things like that, except we have a eyewitness right here who will admit it was. So, the Indian press is very frequently able to get the other side of the story. They have to be careful but this is why I'm telling you the Indian press is right up there with the rest of the world. They will use all these tactics to bring it down because ultimately it's a preservation of your territory. You know, like, it's a bit like dogs, it's a bit like street dogs. When you go to scooter into a colony defense colony or something like that, it's like that. So you know this, I never had issues with the Indian media because on balance. It's histrionic, it's hyperbolic, but the facts are there. I would say the facts are much more there in the Indian media than they are in the western media. Alright, which brings me to the final question, you know, we just have another five to seven minutes, Gaurav with you while we are talking about reporting for a war zone. Give me a sense of, did you feel, did, whether any moments when you really felt, you know, weak, you felt, you know, scared, give me a sense of the person behind the reporter, you know, what he felt, what you've undergone, you know, while reporting from Ukraine. So, as a journalist, it was a great experience. It was the bigger story. And we were getting the kind of play that any reporter would dream of both on Ajstak and on India today, the best channels in our country and I'm very proud to say that. And India today magazine. So, were we scared. Yes, there were some instances, you know, at a time when when the government, the Indian embassy packed up from Kiev, first went to Levy when then went left level went to Poland. And when shelling started in Kiev, everyone was advised to leave everyone was told to leave and almost everyone left. But I wanted to stay on because I thought this is where the story is. So, you know, and I've preserved all those WhatsApp exchanges that I was having with office, when at one point of time I was told, this is an instruction, leave now. And I actually sent a message saying, can I please defy the instruction and stay on, you know, at my own risk, can I sign an indemnity bond, can I stay on. Ultimately, I'm so glad my channel had that faith in me that they permitted us to stay on the both the camera person and I, Pavan Kumar and I, and we stayed on we were forcibly checked out of our hotel, because that's when the situation became very bad. They forced us out of the hotel. They were almost forcing journalists on to trains to take them to live if we actually smuggled ourselves into an Indian gentleman's house. You know, one Mr. Kuldeep Kumar, he's a businessman there. So we went to his house, stayed with him, and then traveled on our own because no fixer, no guide, no one available to carry to take you anywhere. And when we were driving there were instances that people you were being shelled at fired at when we were coming out of Mario pole. We were live on India today, and there was firing happening at our vehicle, which Rajesh actually reported. Oh my God, he said they're firing at us. That happened, but and I was driving and I really drove very fast out of there. Another instance we took a wrong turn. And that was the time I was genuinely scared because for we drove from from Derek pro or Nipah towards cave and for about 200 kilometers down that road. We didn't come across a single other vehicle and I said that's really odd. Why isn't there a single other vehicle on this road? We had actually missed a signboard that said road closed. This road is mind. There were minds on that road and we were driving we were zipping down that road, trying to get to cave until somebody told us get the hell out of here you could die. So some some such instances, but all words covering that war to be able to bring out facts for our viewers. Shweta, your story. I have a more selfish intention when I have a war I always wanted to join the army but women don't have a combat role so I could never get in. So I'm not scared to the point of being suicidal. And the day Gaurav and I were in Irpin, none of the international media had stopped two kilometers before the final check post and there was actually live shelling going on and we were so excited that I said let's go let's go let's go. So to the point where actually the army was. So I love it I don't know what when you get hit by a bullet how would it feel like and I don't want to think about it. A stone for probably scares me more than a bullet. I don't want to be handicapped for life, but bullet but when that day we shot in Irpin the next day, the first journalist casualty happened who was actually shot at by a sniper I don't know a Ukrainian sniper or Russian sniper because Russia never owned up and Ukraine always said it was a Russian, and it was BBC journalist and some American journalist and also a few Ukrainians who were there as fixers, who were also journalists. So we lost a few journalists to shelling as well, but there was no point. I was scared and God knows that I always want to be there in the front and I don't know if this has, I hope there's no bad ending to this because I never think ahead. I don't think when such things happen, I actually enjoy it, especially when my country was not involved, we were not using anything. You said that in a way you love the way we report, the Indian media reports, it does the best job. As a critic, is there anything they could improve in your view as far as war reporting is concerned? You know, I think it's better if Shweta and Gaurav do not listen to me on this, because I'm so accidental I will probably destroy the profitability of their channel if I give them my opinions on how to cover a war. So I think, you know, when I generally, while I tend, I've grown up in the USSR and Vienna and things like that. So, you know, my entire outlook on things is very western in a sense. But that is where you come to appreciate that when something violates your sensibilities or rather opposes your sensibilities, it can very frequently be much better. So I think my only advice is, guys, just do what you're doing. We love you and you're actually really great at your jobs. So don't, I mean, we shouldn't be seeking the validation of others. Let's just do our own thing. We created what we do, and we should just continue doing that, screw all those international awards. You know, we shouldn't become early rental monkeys to perform in their circus. If anything, they need to become paid monkeys in our circus. Thank you so much, Abhijit, Gaurav, Shweta, Vineet, and make I had to leave for a show. And Karan, my colleague, thank you so much for joining us.