Argumentative and noisy

TV REVIEW

Channel surfer

By

Randeep Wadehra

It is remarkable that what should be discussed in the parliament or state legislatures is aired on television. Nevertheless, at least various aspects of governance are discussed, and differences thrashed out in every sense of the term, mercifully barring physical violence, although one has witnessed debaters getting physical onscreen in such countries as Australia, Russia and even the United States. But, we Indians are merely argumentative, albeit a bit noisy. For us, sharp retorts in a verbal duel are far more thrilling than actual punch-ups.

Coming back to the debates. The puppy issue really went viral on the small screen. Faces turned purple while defending Narendra Modi, even as accusers swung between glee and desperation during their attempts to nail him. As expected, most discussions on various news channels did not make any sense. Insinuations and irrelevant digressions dominated the discourse. However, CNN-IBN’s Devil’s Advocate stood out for its muted pitch, tough questions and reasoned arguments, with Karan Thapar being at his provocative best. On the other hand, while responding to Thapar, Ravi Shankar Prasad’s contention that “Muslims are not unhappy with Modi…Their leaders are inciting them to be unhappy…” was not exactly convincing. But, then, one does not expect a party spokesperson to defy the party line. If he does so, he gets the same treatment as meted out to Delhi BJP’s Vice President Aamir Raza (for criticizing Modi) and BSP’s Hamirpur MP Vijay Bahadur Singh (for backing Modi). Further, the burqa remark was defended in a far more ludicrous manner, with one NaMo apologist claiming that anything that covers one’s visage, even a piece of cloth over a criminal’s face, is called a burqa, eliciting fusillades of ridicule.

The tragic death of schoolchildren in Bihar, and many others falling sick in Maharashtra, due to the poisoned food provided under the mid-day meal scheme, attracted focused media attention. As usual, assorted talk show panelists concentrated their energies upon scoring brownie points rather than reaching some sort of consensus over how to put an end to such avoidable, governance-deficit related tragedies.

Conversely, certain issues provided some respite from the relentless din of absurdities and tragedies. The news regarding imposition of strict control over sale of acid received reasonable airtime. NDTV and other channels interviewed several victims for their reactions. Although there was general satisfaction, one victim made a pertinent suggestion. Since it is the state’s duty to protect its citizens’ lives and limbs, concerned state and central governments should jointly foot the bills for all the surgeries and other medical expenses incurred by acid attack victims, who struggle for a modicum of normalcy in their lives through restoration of their disfigured faces and bodies. Would one ever see an engrossing and enlightening TV debate on this aspect? Your bet is as good as mine.

Finally, the discussion on the proposed Marriage Laws Amendment Bill on NDTV was worth watching. The bill approved by the cabinet, seeks to grant a divorced woman share in her husband’s ancestral property. Vishnu Som anchored this very thought provoking talk, with Jaya Jaitley (politician, Samata Party), Khushboo (politician, DMK), Malavika Rajkotia (advocate) and Ajit Rajpara (men’s rights activist) as panelists. While discussing several aspects of the proposed bill the panelists, especially the three women, maintained decorum – so rare in TV discussions, particularly involving contentious issues – despite their differences among themselves as well as with Rajpara.  

Postscript: It is depressing to watch Kashmir slip back into the fires of violence every time peace appears nigh. Will this vicious circle of bloodletting ever end?

Published in The FinancialWorld dated 22 July 2013