The Dumbing Down of Debate — Of Bhagwat, Jayalalitha and a news anchor

Why are we a part of so much noise?

Sometime last month, a friend from Pakistan sent me a text message after a long gap of non-communication. He began by asking why I had not written anything on azadi and inquilab, the public protests of Imran Khan's party. I did subsequently post something, but the fact is that unlike earlier I did not feel the need to time it.

Part of the timing thing is, of course, old journalistic habit of commenting on an event or doing a follow up feature story. It wasn't mere deadlines I was meeting; thoughts were racing through my mind and wouldn't rest until they were put down. The mental race continues.

However, I have begun to wonder and ponder. There are many reasons for it, but here are a few.

I was trying to locate an old column of mine after Jayalaithaa's arrest. Not only did I recall where it was published around the time when the case first got in the news, I remembered the picture that was used as well. While rummaging through the piles, I stopped. What was I doing and why? Did I want to scan the piece and put it up? What would it achieve? Did I want to use bits of it? Both were possibilities, and although my views are not dated I am conscious that despite the long articles written now, what registers most are stray sentences. Like some others, I do have a few of such sentences that can be highlighted. But, it is tidbits that seem to overwhelm — the number of the Tamil Nadu CM's domestic staff, what she ate, drank, wore. Would one want to break the linkages, the ingrained cohesiveness? Would one want 'light' readers to snigger about what they register as pop psychology, the calling out of which is another pop fad?

In any event, I gave up the search. Along the way, I found several pieces. One of them was on the RSS, another mentioned Mohan Bhagwat, who is in the news today because as chief of the Hindutva organisation he managed to get direct entry into national TV as Doordarshan telecast his speech live. If he has said pretty much the same things on earlier occasions, why should what happens now surprise me at all? Nothing has changed. If anything, it is the public secularists who are claiming their pound of flesh by revealing how fearful they are when they cannot even critique this kowtowing to a non-party organisation and drag in religious heads of other communities that do not — and thankfully so — have the standing to be so propped up.

It is the political wayfarers who find sustenance in such liberal rabble-rousing. In the process they ignore that history was no different. Perhaps, the ignoring is willful: It is about grabbing a spot in the sun. It is about a whoa moment holding on to the crutch of a meme to make a point that skims only the crust and lacks the drive, patience and integrity to probe the crux.

One would understand had such testosterone response been from novices. Why do seasoned analysts too join in the dirge of "We are going downhill" when all this has happened before, and not in ancient times? It has happened before our eyes in the 80s, 90s and the 2000s. The RSS speeches are the same.

What we should be doing is to keep our antenna up and raise our voices instead of looking like frightened deer before headlights. There is a horrible fallout of this: the guys in the front are getting hit. The mastermind is safe. For example, Doordarshan gets blamed for the Bhagwat speech when we know that the national channel follows government diktats. Besides that, attention is diverted from similar rightwing nonsense from previous regimes. It is one reason you rarely hear about the 1992-93 riots. This bothers me a lot.

Everybody likes a good fight, to be able to nurse wounds and egos, knowing well that in this junk-food version of news things come cheap and don't last long. And that is such a convenient thing for them. There is no fealty expected in the long run, no commitment.

During the PM's trip to the US, the way the word Modi was used revealed how indebted many in the media are to the new government and its head. A play on the name became less pun and more about building the cult.

Following an altercation between a media person and the rightwing cheerleaders, an industrialist close to the PM reportedly conveyed a message that Modi regretted what had happened. This is what should concern us more, that a businessman is acting as the conduit between a PM and a journalist.

Those holding forth have little or no experience in or about the media, just as the neo-experts are not experts at all. Journalistic space has been taken over by rightwing think-tanks or liberals with too many books and a lot of dust in their shelves. All that is debated is not news. Trivia and gossip too are discussed, and they have a place. But in the enthusiasm to legitimise the trivia or the addenda, opponents are getting more importance. Which is what they want and what they probably incited. Worse, the serious is getting reduced to the level of the frivolous, with its own version of flouncy bouncy analyses.

Third Front or Facade?

How many Third Fronts will we have? Promiscuous political relationships are not likely to last simply because they are not meant to.

What do Nitish Kumar, Sharad Yadav, Naveen Patnaik, Deve Gowda, Om Prakash Chautala and Mulayam Singh Yadav have in common? Does the need to “form this anti-Congress, anti-Modi block” suffice? The BJP also wants a “Congress-mukt (free) Bharat” and the Congress does not want a “communal” party. Therefore, each can qualify as a Third Front if the idea is to oppose a bloc.

It is worrying that parties are coming together at this stage, for the stakes for horse-trading are high now. Rather than an anti-anything move, it appears to be one garnered to make themselves relevant. Many of them have been made irrelevant or have been snubbed. The CPI may not have high ambitions, but it is on the list of all these parties for an alliance. It has already tied up with the AIADMK.

Jayalaitha stated: “AIADMK and CPI have decided to enter into an alliance to face the upcoming Lok Sabha elections together.” Therefore, how would they dethrone Congress to form a “secular and democratic alternative” when the alliance itself if purely electoral?

Nitish Kumar had said, “It’s not exactly a merger of parties, but we can federate these parties.” Given that all of them have only a regional presence, how would they federate? What role would Odisha have in Bihar or UP in Haryana? How much of a presence do these parties have in states where the Congress or BJP are ruling? For that matter, do they even count in Delhi where AAP is holding fort?

Nobody quite knows what such a tie-up entails. Are these alliances designed for the Centre should the results be skewed? Who all would jump in and what happens to the different manifestoes and ideologies of the parties? How many ambitions will they have to deal with?

A small detail has been ignored. The Congress government is a UPA government formed with people like them. The BJP too had ruled as the NDA. Instead of working against the two big parties, the Third Front will in fact give them an opening to pick and choose based on their stated objectives. Did not AAP, which started as pretty much a Third Front prototype, without alliances, end up with ‘support’ from the Congress? Recall the Anna Movement hobnobbing with rightwing parties. What came of it?

There will be more middlemen who will help these alliances for their own ‘cuts’. The Third Front will be fractioned into many smaller groupings and some of these fighters will emerge as victors after joining forces with those they started out opposing.

© Farzana Versey

How to be a fringe element: The Vishwaroopam controversy

I thought people who went against the tide of prevalent thought are fringe elements. Now, from what we see around us, those who can manage to find a herd and sponsors for their ideology are called fringe elements (FE).

There have been times I have been critiqued for not saying politically-correct things; some have even implied that I “like” doing it, without fathoming the immensity of what might be (and indeed have been) the consequences.  But, it’s been a lone hunter (LH) sort of thing.  LH is vastly different from FE, and it surprises me. The outsiders should be the real FE, inhabiting that lonely mofussil space. That’s not how it happens.

The loonies, fundos, rightwingers, bigots have taken over the territory. Now, if you happen to stroll at the edge as LH there is every possibility that you might be mistaken for an FE.

Everyone is screaming out about the fringe elements once again in the mainstream media. TV panels point fingers at them. It is with some befuddlement that I watch how they are by default being transformed into some sort of maverick, almost out of Camus. The latest reason is the film Vishwaroopam that has been banned in Tamil Nadu. It talks about terrorism, specifically Islamic terrorism. Its producer, director, actor Kamal Haasan, who “hawked” his house and “pawned” all his properties for this ambitious Rs. 100 crore project, is being held to ransom by the FE.

They are a bunch of Muslims whose religious sentiments are “hurt”. (Interestingly, Kamal Haasan has himself spoken about being “hurt” by what is happening, and now I am confused about this whole LH-FE business of being hurt.)  The film is doing fine in other South states.  It is Tamil Nadu that decided to ban it. I have not watched the film; the FE have probably not; most of those supporting the FE as well as the filmmaker have not.

This brings us to FoS. Freedom of Speech. Nothing in this episode is about freedom. I believe that a film that deals with a certain kind of terrorism might use its ‘inspiration’; it cannot exist in a vacuum. However, this is not about Islam. No one can make a definitive film on any religion, simply because there are just so many ways of interpreting it, and there will be provision for poetic licence. The FE use it, too.   
Here’s a quick manual on how to be one; as the reference is to the current controversy it will be restricted to Muslims:

• Look at pictures of beard/skullcaps/veils.
• Call friends on devices that they say the religion forbids. Gather in a herd.
• Find helpful sponsors to make and put up posters, effigies, shout slogans.
• Hide all glossy magazines in possession and bring out the Holy Book; play CDs with naats on the way to FE arena.
• Express anger, but talk of hurt (in psychology they call is S&M).
• There is 99 per cent of a possibility that some political group will understand your ‘sentiments’.
• Leave options open.
• The fire will be kept alive even when you are not around.
• Go home to watch yourself on TV. Realise you need to get the look right. Dishevel beard, wear a better cap.
• Set out to battle again. Anger. Hurt.

The Quit India Boo-ment

The biggest mistake people make is to legitimise the FE. If the case is in court, how does the media discuss it? Can the filmmaker give a press conference? Even before the verdict, Kamal Haasan said:

"Now, I shall wait for the afternoon judgement. But add to this, I think I will have to seek a secular state for me to stay in. And that choice would be a place where it would be a secular state. If I can't find it within India, I will hopefully find another country, which is secular that might take me in. M F Husain had to do it, and now Hassan will do it.”

MF, for all his flaws – and I absolutely disagreed with him for taking up the Qatar citizenship – did not have a work banned. His museum was burned down; he was threatened. These were not fringe elements, but members of a political party.

As regards leaving the state or the country for a secular haven, that is how the fringe elements credo thinks. They use emotional blackmail. They too question secularism. It is really turning out to be a wheels-within-wheels scenario.

In terms of the majority of the population, and I mean crossing any specific boundaries, Kamal Haasan is also a fringe element. He is not a common man. He interprets reality. However, he has the intellect, and the statement he made might sound like treason, if we choose to rationalise it.

Incidentally, this is not the first time anyone has spoken about leaving due to pressure. When the Shiv Sena sent its men wearing knickers to protest outside actor Dilip Kumar’s house, he said he would leave the city. Singer Lata Mangeshkar threatened to do so if a flyover was built near her house, because the pollution would affect her voice.

We will not talk about those who are forced to quit because they can’t find livelihood or due to persecution for reasons ranging from their beliefs to their gender to their sexual choices to their freedom to just be what they want to be.

In a statement he had issued, Haasan had written:

“I have been ruthlessly used as a vehicle by small groups who seek political profile. Icon bashing is a great way to be noticed when you are not one yourself. It is happening again and again. Any neutral and patriotic Muslim will surely feel pride on seeing my film. It was designed for that purpose.”

He is right about people joining a bandwagon. However, why does he need to emphasise “neutral and patriotic Muslim”? The terminology is all wrong. You can be a patriotic Indian, and it means your religion is not part of it. There can be no neutrality when judging any aspect, least of all a work of art. Has he made the film as a neutral and patriotic Hindu? No. And one would be disappointed if he did. He should create what he wants to, assuming that a sense of responsibility towards anything is inbuilt in the creative gene.

After his “I’ll leave”, he has agreed to make changes in the film and “move on”. It raises some fundamental questions which some of us would not have considered, given that I support him against the FE.

• Is he compromising because of these elements?
• Is there political pressure?
• Has he, in fact, seen his own film in a new light and found certain incendiary portions?
• Is he concerned about the money he will lose? (He said he does not care.)
• Has he let down those who stood by him only to please a handful of his “Muslim brothers”?

I am hurt because he has caved in and because of his preemptive implication that if some people who are not the lumpen were to later object to parts of the film their neutrality and patriotism could be questioned.

It bothers me that the fringe elements as well as the filmmaker are playing with the sensibilities and intelligence of many of us.

In saying so, I realise that in spirit some of us are more on the fringe than both, the streetfighters and the filmmaker, for not being backed or backing out.

End Note:

Imagine if a hardliner were to ask the director to make changes and it would include his name. Kamal means lotus and is the BJP symbol and Haasan, which is spelt as Hassan sometimes, is a Muslim name.

(c) Farzana Versey