There was no doubting the complimentary nature of the response, yet it left one with a disquieting sense that the national gaze was perhaps less accommodating of the western part of the country than one had imagined.

Today, of course, things seem remarkably different. In the run-up to the assembly elections, Gujarat was crawling with mediapersons. Crews from every television channel were trawling the state. Senior journalists, often more than one per publication, sociologists, psephologists and consular officers came calling. Statements of national leaders were splashed daily on the front pages and apart from the election coverage brief news clips attempted to convey something of the sociology and long-term politics of the state.

A senior Ahmedabad-based commentator on Gujarat recalls how miffed he had been in 1998 when Doordarshan, like other sections of the national media, allotted far greater space to northern Himachal Pradesh, a smaller state, than to Gujarat though both were going to the polls at the same time. Now, of course, ironically, it is Himachal Pradesh that has reason to feel neglected in comparison to the overkill on Gujarat. But does this mean that the imbalance has been corrected?

Unfortunately not. To put things in perspective it needs to be recalled that the excessive coverage of Gujarat began with the 2002 violence, a development the media failed to predict despite its intensive coverage of the rise of Hindutva elsewhere, particularly in the north. It seems safe also to assume that had the BJP lost the last assembly election, media interest would have abated. It is primarily the Modi phenomenon, the bizarre strength of his authoritarian and fascist tendencies that kept media interest in Gujarat so vibrant just like Bal Thackeray and the Shiv Sena became a focal point for Mumbai in the national and international media, following the Mumbai riots a decade earlier.

... contd.