We have all seen mobile phone footage of human rights violations – usually excessive use of force by police at demonstrations. Whether in Myanmar, Iran or the UK they have the same characteristics – low quality, immediate and gripping. But are they useful for human rights activism? Or are they just cluttering up the YouTube data banks, compensating the media for the loss of foreign correspondents and giving human rights NGOs something to embed on their websites? In the examples of the Iran election protests earlier this year they certainly provided the eyes for the world on what was going on, much the same as in the case for the monk-led protests in 2007. In the UK the footage from the G20 protests will no doubt be part of an investigation and trial into Ian Tomlinson’s death. But could NGOs be using this footage better, in non-conventional circumstances?
This BBC World Service programme by Suvojit Bagchi gives a fascinating insight not only into the rise of ‘mobile phone activism‘ in Indian administered Kashmir, but also how this footage has been used to address human rights violations.
Copyright BBC World Service
The programme reveals the tension between the provision of mobile phone services and internet by the Indian state and how it is used to by activists to hightlight violations. The security forces freely admit to be monitoring mobile services and IP addresses, though it is unclear how worried the activists need to be given that to date no one has been arrested for posting such material. Maybe better to be safe than sorry, and as such they keep their identities secret and use internet cafes.
Some of the members of the so-called ‘cyber resistance‘ say the videos and photos they capture and share are part of a collective memory of the ‘freedom movement‘. They say they know very little about the resistance that took place in the 1990′s as the means to record it were not so freely available. They see what they do as building an archive for their children.
A spokes person for the military states that most of the YouTube footage posted by the cyber activists in ‘fake‘. Though they would I guess. The programme focuses on this video that records the shooting of a young man at a demonstration.
WARNING – THIS VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC IMAGES.
One of the challenges for those wishing to use such footage in human rights advocacy is that you know so little about it. In the past as part of my work I have been sent photos (some very graphic) of abuses. Most were unusable in public materials due to their content but even if they were we had few ways to verify their authenticity. If part of your leverage comes from the trust put in your research then you need to be careful what stuff you use. This is also a criticism of ‘citizen journalism‘ – used in its broadest definition – in that footage picked up on-line is hard to critically judge for its independence, balance and accuracy (let alone whether it is fake). But lets not get into the whole citizen journalism thing here.
However, some of the mobile activists footage has been used in high level advocacy. Dr. Angana Chatterji of the California Institute of Integral Studies in San Francisco, talks about how she has used the mobile footage in some of her lobbying work.
In 2008 she briefed the European Parliament on the human rights situation in Kashmir and played them some of the video footage. They passed a resolution based on the findings.
“I think the footage encourages debate and discussion. These other mediums have the ability to galvanize, mobilise to vast audiences, guerrilla fashion. In front of a parliament, for example I was recently asked to speak to the US Congress, there is a curiosity, how do we imagine what is on-going? This enables me to show what I have seen, and it is based on this that I am speaking to you. It changes how people are able to visualise and relate to the info.“
Chatterji highlights one of the key strengths of visual media in social activism – enabling your audience to visualise the context and specifics of the situation you wish them to engage with. She demonstrates the utility of this even when communicating with political leaders. This is partly about making it real to them – a collaboration of images and text that produce a mix of evidence. But it is also about bridging the gap between them and the people impacted by the violations. If this gap can be bridge then empathy can be build, and you forget the humanity of political leaders at your peril.
Filed under: Campaigning, Video Tagged: | Asia, human rights, India, Kashmir, mobile phones, NGO, South Asia, web
