|
 |
|
(from left) Lt Gen (retd) Jack
(Jacob-Farj-Rafael) Jacob, India Today Editorial Director M.J.
Akbar, Latha Reddy, Secretary (East) in the Ministry of
External Affairs, and former Naxal leader Ashim Chatterjee at
the 10th India Today Conclave held in New Delhi March 18, 19
2011
(Photo:
Vikram Sharma/India Today) |
Narendra Modi got at least one thing
right. At the recently-concluded India Today Conclave, when he was
asked a question about his final call regarding being part of the
Centre, he said, “And you think all this should be made clear here?”
‘Here’ is a word that encapsulates the media and the belief that
newspapers and television channels are the conduits between the
citizens and the people in power. It has become commonplace for
media houses to have award functions to honour people for excellence
in public life or in fields where they represent the nation.
Covertly, the media is taking sides, so where is the objectivity
they talk about? These events are sponsored and it is distasteful to
watch the leaders in every sphere being handed over scrolls and
trophies that have been paid for by some business group.
Therefore, on what basis do politicians berate the media when they
agree to participate in such functions? This is not a forum for
clarification. They are answerable to the citizens of the country
and not to the TV channels and newspaper owners, who choose their
winners as per the flavour of the season. How can they decide on the
“most deserving”, the “best” – what are the yardsticks? Some take
cover by pretending to use the popular voice, which happens to be
SMS polls, filling the pockets of the phone company.
The India Today Conclave did not hand over awards, but the
discussions and question-answer sessions were designed to appear as
a representation of all angles. Yet, how rounded was it really?
While prime minister Manmohan Singh made hesitant remarks about the
WikiLeaks, Narendra Modi got away with the usual stand of promoting
his state’s economic progress and called it the “people’s movement”.
A member of the audience helpfully mentioned his World Bank stint
and how all the wonderful business houses swear that Gujarat is one
place where they don’t have to pay to do business. This went
unchallenged and there was applause. Even those responsible for the
great exposes on the Gujarat chief minister asked him soft
questions. Why? Were they told beforehand to skirt anything
controversial? How important was it to know about his spin doctors
and image-building when inbuilt in the query is the belief that he
has indeed managed to get himself a great image?
Someone wanted an assurance from him that there would be no riots in
the state. Imagine how fortunate the media feels when they succeed
in getting him to promise them he will be a good boy. What did he
do? He gave a history of the state’s communal riots before 2002 and
how nothing happened after that. There was no further probing about
his sly role in transferring police officers, about encounter deaths
and about people still waiting for justice. Modi got a golden
opportunity to camouflage all evil. Manmohan Singh was not as
successful, not because he was put on the mat but because we had the
outside ‘objective’ source to pin him down.
The outside force in Kashmir was represented by Syed Ali Shah
Geelani. It was a deliberate attempt to get a pro-Pakistani speaker.
It gave Farooq Abdullah an opportunity to display his allegiance to
India as he sparred with Geelani by discussing not the failure of
his party to address several issues but by bringing in the problems
of Christians in Pakistan. These diversionary tactics are precisely
what make important issues seem like a playground for the media
cheerleaders.
Even the title of the session on gender was ridiculous and
patronising: “Can the burqa and the bikini co-exist?” Why only burqa
and not ghunghat or even power-suits? And why bikini and not other
modes of casual dress? Do women go around wearing bikinis in the
streets, to work, at home? What did Germaine Greer mean when she
said, “The bikini actually forces women to have bodies of children,
and women, who are naturally fat-bottomed animals, are forced to
lose weight and then buy new breasts because they lose them as
well”?
Perhaps Ms. Greer should visit the beaches sometime and see that not
all women in bikinis follow the flat-bottom principle, and some
animals might be lean in the rear as well. I won’t even get into the
burqa discussion because when it is isolated in such a manner in a
broad narrative there is a tendency to be condescending about how
bright those women too are. It is at the level of lipstick on pig.
That brings us to Sarah Palin. Almost a month before she arrived to
give a keynote address on ‘My vision of America’, USA Today had
quoted Andrew Cline’s argument that “someone who makes a trip to
India a higher priority than a trip to New Hampshire” could not be a
serious presidential candidate. The rhetorical query was: “Palin
going for the outsourced vote?” How daft is that. It assumes, as has
become the pattern now, that Palin will be dumb because recent
geographical records prove that you cannot see Russia from Alaska
and by default Indians are dumb and will be taken in by a former
beauty queen, just as the Pakistan President was when he called her
gorgeous at an official meeting. Indians do not vote in the American
elections, unless you keep the migrants in mind. How she comes
across in India will not affect their voting choices.
The Indian media too initially stood on flaky ground and mentioned
her shopping spree. Many others would have gone shopping and in fact
done more networking than she did. It is weird that some women
wanted her to be asked tough questions when they themselves took the
safe way out to portray a balanced picture with ifs and buts. A
media conclave cannot give a clear picture of what Palin or the
Republicans stand for on all issues. It is to her credit that she
spoke up for women in the White House by mentioning Hillary Clinton.
We may have issues with Palin’s statements and politics, but her
views are ironically reflective of what she called the “lamestream
media”. It isn’t just about one conclave and one media group. As
India’s economy grows, we are becoming a bit too cocky globally for
our own good. It is not confidence, but shallow bravado where we
ride the poverty gravy cart to flaunt an unabashed small segment of
polluted wealth. The media is the illegitimate offspring of such
socialistic liberalisation.
We have had recent exposes of lobbying. This is the big story. There
are smaller ones and one is forced to question whether the concept
of paid news is not applicable to awards and honour ceremonies and
symposia where the people who ought to be questioned are given an
opportunity to clarify their positions.
In his weekly diary in Outlook, Vinod Mehta recounted an interesting
anecdote about “two flamboyant Indian editors, R.K. Karanjia (Blitz)
and Ayub Syed (Current) who, alas, are no longer with us. Both made
annual visits to Gaddafi's tent in Tripoli. Ayub, who could be
disarmingly candid, once mentioned to me that he was off to Libya to
meet the great leader. ‘I never forget to take two empty suitcases
with me when I meet him and on the way back I always stay for one
day at Zurich.’ Russi was much more cunning and made no such
admission, but he also went on his annual pilgrimage and came back
loaded. At that time these were the only two journalists/editors who
had direct contact with Gaddafi. Incidentally, it was one of these
gentlemen who came back with the offer Gaddafi made to Indira
Gandhi: sell me the bomb technology and India will never be short of
oil.”
Anyone who knows these and many more facts might believe that such
in-house prejudices have always existed. So, along with the
forwarded piece from Outlook, a person with political affiliations
added a note that said: “In the enclosed item, I do not see any
sense of revulsion - worse, I see a sense of admiration. The two
journalists were considered to be sort of doyens of the profession.”
It is an important point, especially if exposing the Radia tapes is
about lobbying then so was arranging meetings.
I have met both these gentlemen, one for a couple of interviews and
the other when I did a few assignments and usually for a chat. Since
I spoke with Mr. Karanjia on specific topics, he was forthcoming
about his international contacts and his role as liaison person. He
was a global citizen before the term gained currency, quite
literally. However, unlike the other media owners who were
interested in toppling governments he had no such interest. Blitz
was happier, I suspect, with its back page and its pin-up model and
the last vestiges of a communist idea kept in high spirits with the
occasional sharp shots of tequila.
Things have altered because there is more competition between media
groups. Earlier they fought over getting the best journalists; now
they fight over politicians, industrial houses, advertising
agencies, film corporations. They have the gall to portray
themselves as the liberal faces of India when they are parochial
pockets with their own allegiances. And when they say “Iss hamam
mein sab nangey hai (everyone is naked in the public baths)”
while talking about lesser mortals, they forget where they have left
their own clothes. Or is it masks?
Farzana Versey is
a Mumbai-based author-columnist.
She can be reached at
http://farzana-versey.blogspot.com/
|
Comments
|
Quick links