10-22-2006, 03:21 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->
<b>Uncritical celebration of minority interests with corresponding denigration of Hindus</b>
<i>Create a parallel media not afraid to be nationalist or Hindu
By Swapan Dasgupta </i>
We saw this in evidence during the Vande Mataram controversy where editors and presenters failed to distinguish between objectivity and neutrality. It is the dharma of editors to be objective but this does not impose an obligation on them to be neutral in the battle between separatism and nationalism.
My own experience suggests that breaking the stultifying liberal consensus is a daily exercise in guerrilla warfare. In the aftermath of globalisation, the liberal consensus has veered round to a contrived expression of cosmopolitanism.
<b>Fond belief that competitive democracy would force publications to recognise the force of Hindu disquiet has turned out to be horribly misplaced. </b>The term of the NDA Government, for example, saw yesterday's pro-Congress newspapers being feted and flattered by representatives of the very government whose formation they had so uncompromisingly resisted.
I have been approached by numerous individuals seeking redress to what they see as an enduring media problemâthe "anti-Hindu" bias of both the print and electronic media.
*Â Â *Â Â *
<b>Secularism in India has come to mean an uncritical celebration of minority interests and a corresponding denigration of "Hindu" interests. </b>
There are two subjects on which nearly every middle-class Indian has an opinion: cricket and the media.
On cricket, a complex game that has as much to do with the mind and playing conditions as with physical skill, the views are generally pedestrian and centred on a simple reading of the score-card. Although cricket is now a mass spectator sport, its popular understanding is not grounded in the ethos of the game.
Not so the media. The spread of literacy, improvements in living standards and the technology revolution has transformed the media from an elite habit to an item of mass consumption. The entry of a deregulated electronic media has made all the difference. Whereas access to newspapers and magazines were tempered by affordability, leisure time and education, there are few entry barriers to TV and radio. Indeed, the electronic media has been instrumental in enabling the literate and neo-literate population to secure access to news and information. To that extent, the media has been a great liberatorâparticularly after state monopoly over the electronic media ended in the 1990s.
Given its all-pervading reach and monumental potential, it is only right that nearly every citizen has an opinion on the media. Having been a media "insider" for the past 25 years, I am struck by the range of popular opinions on the political influence of the media.
Politicians, I have noticed, have an exaggerated view of the media's influence. Consequently, they have evolved elaborate strategies to use this influence to advantage and these have ranged from harmless spin doctoringâwhich, in the Indian context, also involves intimidationâ to plain bribery. Some of these strategies have also been adopted by corporate houses, leading to the emergence of a strange breed of so-called professionalsâ the public relations and communications experts whose sole job is to be the interface with the media.
The second feature of the public engagement with the media is over the question of political bias. Over the years, but particularly since the late-1980s, I have been approached by numerous individuals seeking redress to what they see is an enduring media problemâthe "anti-Hindu" bias of both the print and electronic media. Is the Indian media anti-Hindu? The question cannot be answered with a simple Yes or No, not least because the media is too large and diverse to be aggregated. However, based on my experiences in the English-language media, I can offer a few insights which may help clarify matters in the minds of media consumers.
First, while the origins of the print media are to be found in the freedom struggle, very little of that legacy survives. Today's media owners and editors perceive themselves as "professionals" responsible for maintaining the bottom line of the company. Their self-image is one of dispassionate but cynical observers of the political scene. There was a time when their approach was tempered by a few non-negotiables. Increasingly, these are being discarded and the media is now encouraged to view nothing as sacred.
There is an emerging rootlessness which manifests itself in skewed opinions.
Secondly, the tone and tenor of the entire media is set by the preferences of the English-language newspapers and channels. <b>They have become the arbiters of both taste and opinion. These tastes and opinions in turn are not generated internally. In nine-out-of- ten cases, the intellectual orientation of the English-language media is shaped by newspapers like The Guardian and New York Times. These are publications that reflect what can loosely be called the liberal consensus. </b>
Obviously, the liberal consensus means one thing in the United Kingdom and the United States and something quite different in India. Whereas in the anglophone world, the symbol of liberalism is multiculturalism, in India the liberal consensus has veered round to a slightly skewed version of secularism. If multiculturalism abjures the Anglo-Saxon and Christian heritage of the English-speaking world, secularism in India has come to mean an uncritical celebration of minority interests and a corresponding denigration of "Hindu" interests.
It is not the case that undermining everything Hindu is wilful or conscious. It proceeds on the assumption that Hindu equals assertive majoritarianism and by implication a trampling of minority rights. This leads to peculiar situations. Since the English-language media is firmly on the side of so-called modernity, it is in the forefront of a campaign against some of the more oppressive features of Muslim Personal Law, particularly in relation to women. At the same time, it misses no opportunity to rubbish all demands for a Common Civil Code because this is seen to be against minority rights. The claims of the "moderate" Muslims are given a great deal of importance in the liberal media. At the same time, there is a grudging recognition of the British novelist Martin Amis's claim that whereas "moderate Islam is always deceptively well-represented on the level of the op-ed page and public debate; elsewhere, it is supine and inaudible." This inadequacy forces the editors to take a very apologetic view of radical Islamism.
It is rarely presented as a warped ideology and more as a protest against insensitive Western imperialism.
Finally, the warped pseudo-liberalism of the media in India reproduces itself in the form of peer group pressure on the new entrants to the profession. Once it is made sufficiently clear to all that professional advancement lies in toeing the line, the rest fall into place. True, there are stray voices of dissent. But such people are grudgingly tolerated. My own experience suggests that breaking the stultifying liberal consensus is a daily exercise in guerrilla warfare. In the aftermath of globalisation, the liberal consensus has veered round to a contrived expression of cosmopolitanism. This does not translate into a greater awareness of the world or a desire to view the world through the prism of India. It has invariably meant denigrating the faith in the nation-state and mocking Indian nationalism as archaic. We saw this in evidence during the Vande Mataram controversy where editors and presenters failed to distinguish between objectivity and neutrality. It is the dharma of editors to be objective but this does not impose an obligation on them to be neutral in the battle between separatism and nationalism.
The fond belief that competitive democracy would force publications to recognise the force of Hindu disquiet has turned out to be horribly misplaced. The term of the NDA Government, for example, saw yesterday's pro-Congress newspapers being feted and flattered by representatives of the very government whose formation they had so uncompromisingly resisted. If this had been a co-option strategy it would have been understandable but it turned out to be an expression of social inadequacy on the part of those who had championed Hindu interests in the political arena.
No wonder the fall of the NDA Government led to the English-language media reverting to its prejudices with renewed vigour.
<b>The moral of the story is simple. Hindu nationalism cannot expect fair treatment from the English-language media as it is presently constituted. A shift has to be accompanied by both ideological confrontation and the creation of a parallel media which is not afraid to be either nationalist or Hindu. </b>
<i>(The writer is a celebrated columnist.) </i>
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/ modules.php? name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=153&page=5<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<b>Uncritical celebration of minority interests with corresponding denigration of Hindus</b>
<i>Create a parallel media not afraid to be nationalist or Hindu
By Swapan Dasgupta </i>
We saw this in evidence during the Vande Mataram controversy where editors and presenters failed to distinguish between objectivity and neutrality. It is the dharma of editors to be objective but this does not impose an obligation on them to be neutral in the battle between separatism and nationalism.
My own experience suggests that breaking the stultifying liberal consensus is a daily exercise in guerrilla warfare. In the aftermath of globalisation, the liberal consensus has veered round to a contrived expression of cosmopolitanism.
<b>Fond belief that competitive democracy would force publications to recognise the force of Hindu disquiet has turned out to be horribly misplaced. </b>The term of the NDA Government, for example, saw yesterday's pro-Congress newspapers being feted and flattered by representatives of the very government whose formation they had so uncompromisingly resisted.
I have been approached by numerous individuals seeking redress to what they see as an enduring media problemâthe "anti-Hindu" bias of both the print and electronic media.
*Â Â *Â Â *
<b>Secularism in India has come to mean an uncritical celebration of minority interests and a corresponding denigration of "Hindu" interests. </b>
There are two subjects on which nearly every middle-class Indian has an opinion: cricket and the media.
On cricket, a complex game that has as much to do with the mind and playing conditions as with physical skill, the views are generally pedestrian and centred on a simple reading of the score-card. Although cricket is now a mass spectator sport, its popular understanding is not grounded in the ethos of the game.
Not so the media. The spread of literacy, improvements in living standards and the technology revolution has transformed the media from an elite habit to an item of mass consumption. The entry of a deregulated electronic media has made all the difference. Whereas access to newspapers and magazines were tempered by affordability, leisure time and education, there are few entry barriers to TV and radio. Indeed, the electronic media has been instrumental in enabling the literate and neo-literate population to secure access to news and information. To that extent, the media has been a great liberatorâparticularly after state monopoly over the electronic media ended in the 1990s.
Given its all-pervading reach and monumental potential, it is only right that nearly every citizen has an opinion on the media. Having been a media "insider" for the past 25 years, I am struck by the range of popular opinions on the political influence of the media.
Politicians, I have noticed, have an exaggerated view of the media's influence. Consequently, they have evolved elaborate strategies to use this influence to advantage and these have ranged from harmless spin doctoringâwhich, in the Indian context, also involves intimidationâ to plain bribery. Some of these strategies have also been adopted by corporate houses, leading to the emergence of a strange breed of so-called professionalsâ the public relations and communications experts whose sole job is to be the interface with the media.
The second feature of the public engagement with the media is over the question of political bias. Over the years, but particularly since the late-1980s, I have been approached by numerous individuals seeking redress to what they see is an enduring media problemâthe "anti-Hindu" bias of both the print and electronic media. Is the Indian media anti-Hindu? The question cannot be answered with a simple Yes or No, not least because the media is too large and diverse to be aggregated. However, based on my experiences in the English-language media, I can offer a few insights which may help clarify matters in the minds of media consumers.
First, while the origins of the print media are to be found in the freedom struggle, very little of that legacy survives. Today's media owners and editors perceive themselves as "professionals" responsible for maintaining the bottom line of the company. Their self-image is one of dispassionate but cynical observers of the political scene. There was a time when their approach was tempered by a few non-negotiables. Increasingly, these are being discarded and the media is now encouraged to view nothing as sacred.
There is an emerging rootlessness which manifests itself in skewed opinions.
Secondly, the tone and tenor of the entire media is set by the preferences of the English-language newspapers and channels. <b>They have become the arbiters of both taste and opinion. These tastes and opinions in turn are not generated internally. In nine-out-of- ten cases, the intellectual orientation of the English-language media is shaped by newspapers like The Guardian and New York Times. These are publications that reflect what can loosely be called the liberal consensus. </b>
Obviously, the liberal consensus means one thing in the United Kingdom and the United States and something quite different in India. Whereas in the anglophone world, the symbol of liberalism is multiculturalism, in India the liberal consensus has veered round to a slightly skewed version of secularism. If multiculturalism abjures the Anglo-Saxon and Christian heritage of the English-speaking world, secularism in India has come to mean an uncritical celebration of minority interests and a corresponding denigration of "Hindu" interests.
It is not the case that undermining everything Hindu is wilful or conscious. It proceeds on the assumption that Hindu equals assertive majoritarianism and by implication a trampling of minority rights. This leads to peculiar situations. Since the English-language media is firmly on the side of so-called modernity, it is in the forefront of a campaign against some of the more oppressive features of Muslim Personal Law, particularly in relation to women. At the same time, it misses no opportunity to rubbish all demands for a Common Civil Code because this is seen to be against minority rights. The claims of the "moderate" Muslims are given a great deal of importance in the liberal media. At the same time, there is a grudging recognition of the British novelist Martin Amis's claim that whereas "moderate Islam is always deceptively well-represented on the level of the op-ed page and public debate; elsewhere, it is supine and inaudible." This inadequacy forces the editors to take a very apologetic view of radical Islamism.
It is rarely presented as a warped ideology and more as a protest against insensitive Western imperialism.
Finally, the warped pseudo-liberalism of the media in India reproduces itself in the form of peer group pressure on the new entrants to the profession. Once it is made sufficiently clear to all that professional advancement lies in toeing the line, the rest fall into place. True, there are stray voices of dissent. But such people are grudgingly tolerated. My own experience suggests that breaking the stultifying liberal consensus is a daily exercise in guerrilla warfare. In the aftermath of globalisation, the liberal consensus has veered round to a contrived expression of cosmopolitanism. This does not translate into a greater awareness of the world or a desire to view the world through the prism of India. It has invariably meant denigrating the faith in the nation-state and mocking Indian nationalism as archaic. We saw this in evidence during the Vande Mataram controversy where editors and presenters failed to distinguish between objectivity and neutrality. It is the dharma of editors to be objective but this does not impose an obligation on them to be neutral in the battle between separatism and nationalism.
The fond belief that competitive democracy would force publications to recognise the force of Hindu disquiet has turned out to be horribly misplaced. The term of the NDA Government, for example, saw yesterday's pro-Congress newspapers being feted and flattered by representatives of the very government whose formation they had so uncompromisingly resisted. If this had been a co-option strategy it would have been understandable but it turned out to be an expression of social inadequacy on the part of those who had championed Hindu interests in the political arena.
No wonder the fall of the NDA Government led to the English-language media reverting to its prejudices with renewed vigour.
<b>The moral of the story is simple. Hindu nationalism cannot expect fair treatment from the English-language media as it is presently constituted. A shift has to be accompanied by both ideological confrontation and the creation of a parallel media which is not afraid to be either nationalist or Hindu. </b>
<i>(The writer is a celebrated columnist.) </i>
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/ modules.php? name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=153&page=5<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->