By
Randeep Wadehra
Ideally, media should represent a nation in dialogue with itself as
well as with the rest of the world. It should impel introspection, inculcate
attitudes and value systems and nurture interactions among citizens, ideologues,
social groups and thinkers at various levels, which help build a nation’s profile
that finds articulation through countless forums. The consequent juxtaposition
of a nation’s public image and self-image engenders a quiet evolution in its
dynamics. The process is perennial, ensuring constant upgrades, revisions,
discards and adaptations. So long as this process continues a society is assured
of good health; in case any ill creeps in, recovery is assured too. Today,
television is the single largest medium for conducting such dialogue. It has
immense potential for moulding public opinion and sensibility through a wide
range of fiction and non-fiction programming.
However, this potential was not even noticed when TV first came to India
in 1959. The decision makers were quite dismissive of this technological
marvel’s possibilities in the field of development as well as politics and
governance. Later on, they began to look upon it as an instrument of
propaganda; entertainment and information programming could have only one
purpose, viz., brainwash the masses to promote the interests of those in power.
Luckily, this realization dawned towards the beginning of 1980s; otherwise, this
Orwellian worldview would have accentuated the havoc perpetrated during the Emergency.
Nevertheless, in the 1980s, TV was consciously turned into an
instrument of political strategy. It was comparatively easy because of the
state television’s monopoly. Yet, there were certain divergent portents of
things to come. Although Doordarshan imitated the Soviet template of being an
agent of the socialist state, it also simultaneously accommodated the steady
growth of Indian capitalism, gradually turning commercial from the latter half
of 1970s onwards with the introduction of advertising – a sure sign of
consumerism making its presence felt. These developments augmented the creation
of a new consumer class, which promoted a new notion of collectivity described
as the middle class. Thereafter, it was only a matter of time before the
national dialogue became pluralistic. However, Doordarshan’s fiction
programming was far more flexible, ideologically speaking. On the one hand, it
had Tamas – a leftist take on the causes and consequences of the 1947
partition – and on the other hand, it provided space to serials like Ramayana
and Mahabharata that wittingly or unwittingly enabled Hindutva’s
revival. In fact, another popular serial, Chanakya, unabashedly promoted
jingoism through the constant “Ma Bharati” refrain. The fictionalized Chanakya
– a real historical character otherwise, who has made invaluable contribution
to the corpus of literature pertaining to India’s political economy as well as
administration – emerges as a tireless nation-builder via temple pathshalas; the serial was certainly ultra-right in theme and content. At
the same time, Shyam Benegal’s non-fiction series, Bharat Ek Khoj,
provided a balanced and centrist perspective on the evolution of Indian
society.
The arrival of satellite TV technology heralded the lessening, and
eventual disappearance, of the State’s stranglehold on electronics media. Consequently,
the dialogue attained several, often dissonant, voices. Unlike Doordarshan,
private channels are more open to contrarian views that may not necessarily be to
the establishment’s liking. This is more apparent in news programming than in
other non-fiction or fiction genres. Today, proliferation of TV channels in
different languages has transformed the content and form of gathering and
dissemination of news. Accordingly, it is possible for television to influence
national, regional and local politics as well as public discourse. Since India
has a rich tradition of public debates and discourses that goes back to Vedic
times, it has enabled us to tolerate and even strengthen dissent. Consequently,
the process of influencing and even determining public opinion through TV
debates has become a powerful element in the country’s political discourse.
However, the media’s increasing propensity for sensationalism is a
worry; and this tendency has plummeted to infantile levels. Minor border
incidents are mindlessly exaggerated and pointlessly debated. To call them
“debates” is ludicrous indeed. They are more like juveniles bent upon trading
insults and insinuations. One really wonders as to what sort of public opinion
is being fashioned through such exercises. Probably, informed public opinion is
not really their purpose; it is more like catering to the outlet’s prejudices
and, more pertinently, attracting lucrative advertisements. Even where shouting
matches are muted, viewers remain in the dark about causes and consequences of
a particular development. Let us take a few examples.
The killing of Indian soldiers on the Indo-Pak border on two separate
occasions created uproar in the media, without placing them in proper
perspective. A popular talk show’s anchor does his level best to score points
off Pakistani panelists. Perhaps it does his ego a lot of good in that he is
able to tell off the “enemy’s” military top brass. But, how informative is the
entire interaction? Similar hubris does not manifest itself when Chinese
soldiers intrude into our territory in Ladakh. Our anchors and assorted experts
do fume, but not at an invited Chinese panelist, but at some hapless government
spokesperson/apologist. Perhaps the Chinese diplomats stationed in Delhi do not
give a fig to what the Indian media say. Or, perhaps, the Indian talk show
moderators do not have the guts to invite them and mete out the same treatment
as they do to Pakistani guests. In the process, we lose credibility – something
that does not appear to carry much weight with our media mandarins.
So much airtime is wasted on waffle. For a change, one would like to
hear some substantive talk on important developments having far-reaching
consequences for the country. For instance, we find the unusual spectacle of
all political parties joining hands in their attempt to undo the good done by
the honorable Supreme Court in the matter of convicted lawmakers, and the honorable
CIC in the matter of bringing political parties within the RTI’s jurisdiction.
Why is there no serious dialogue on such matters? Most of the positive news is kept
either hidden or relegated to non-primetime slots. India has come a long way
from being a basket case in the 1960s to turn into a huge and vibrant economy
of the 21st century. What brought about this transformation? What
should be its future roadmap to growth? We would like to know. Period.
Published in The FinancialWorld dated 15 August 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment