|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
NEWS YOU CAN USE Editor: N. P. Chekkutty Media Focus |
Asghar Ali Engineer Media and Minorities In this age of information technology media plays a very crucial role in projecting images. What appears in media--print or visual--is widely accepted by people as true. There are very few discerning readers or watchers who would critically look at what appears in the media. It is also true that media plays a very important role in a modern democratic society. More often, it plays god. It is a vehicle for opinion-making. Hence it has to be very careful while projecting images. Unfortunately, it is not so, at least in a majority of cases. There are very few papers which write about minorities after thorough study and with a positive and constructive attitude. The English papers, though more careful, also often throw caution to the winds while reporting on crucial events pertaining to minorities. The language papers are (with honourable exceptions) much worse. They never observe any caution and often display a crude prejudice in their reporting about minorities. And there is yet another category, organs of communal outfits like Samna, which deliberately, and even maliciously, project distorted images of minorities. In the north, central and western India, the Hindi, Marathi and Gujarati papers are the worst culprits. They often display crude prejudices against minorities in their reports and stories. Samna, the Marathi mouthpiece of the Shiv Sena, uses highly provocative language against Muslims and Christians, especially against Muslims. During the Bombay riots this paper called Muslims "pro-Pakistani traitors" and wrote several editorials against them. The campaign was so vicious that the ex-chief secretary of Maharashtra, J.B. D'Souza, filed a public interest writ petition in the Bombay High Court against its editor under the Criminal Procedure Act. It should be borne in mind that the Samna is read by lakhs of Maharashtrians every day and their opinion is influenced by it. Even the policemen read it regularly and form their perceptions about minorities from what appears in Samna. No wonder they have jaundiced views about Muslims. And what is sad is that Samna is no exception though other language papers may not be as crude. All these papers stereotype every minority community, treating them as completely homogeneous. A social anthropologist or even a discerning and conscious person knows that the minority communities like Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Buddhists, are not homogeneous at all. All these communities, like others, are quite heterogeneous. There are, within them, sectarian, linguistic and cultural differences and their political attitudes also greatly vary. It is, for example, assumed by even well-meaning scholars that all Muslims had supported the partition in 1947. It is a highly questionable assumption. The print media also frequently writes along these lines. The fact is that the Muslims were polarised on this question. The partition project was supported, by and large, by middle and upper class Muslims of UP and Bihar where they were in a minority. Even in these states, there was a large number of middle and upper class Muslims, popularly known as 'nationalist Muslims' who were vehemently opposed to partition. The lower caste and lower class Muslims like Ansaris and others, who saw absolutely no benefit in the creation of Pakistan, opposed the partition. The Ansaris were well organised and politically conscious and voiced their opposition to partition through public demonstrations. Many prominent Muslim theologians led by Maulana Husain Ahmed Madani were also opposed to the partition and substantiated their stand from a religious perspective. However, this is hardly projected in the media. Throughout the eighties when communal conflicts were at their height, Muslims were seen by the media as not only supporters of Pakistan but also loyal to it. The other notorious example is that of cricket. When Pakistan won and some Muslims rejoiced at the victory of Pakistan, the media projected as if all Muslims did so. Unfortunately, cricket which is deified by the media and projected out of all proportions, became a holy war not only between two countries but also, according to a section of the media, between Hindus and Muslims. And this despite the fact that Indian Muslims like Mohammed Azharuddin have led the team. The minorities are often stereotyped as 'fanatical' and 'fundamentalist' and acts of a few individuals are seen as that of an entire community. Even if a religious leader issues an appeal to the Muslims, it would be described by a loaded word like fatwa, as if fatwa is binding on all Muslims. Hardly anyone bothers to find out that no fatwa, even if issued by a prominent theologian, is binding on all Muslims. There is no concept of priesthood in Islam. And to describe a political appeal as fatwa is also very irresponsible. The way the Shah Banu case was projected in the media, including the secular press, gave the impression that only Muslims mistreated their women and denied them their basic rights. Suddenly the national press became the champion of Muslim women's rights. It is true that some orthodox Muslims and particularly the Muslim leadership took a rigid stand; not out of love for Islamic orthodoxy but, and it is important to note, to grab an opportunity to become ‘towering leaders’ and to project themselves as ‘champions of Islam’. This aspect was almost missing in the media. There were many liberal and progressive Muslims who were opposing the fundamentalists, upholding the Supreme Court judgement. This, however, was not adequately projected in the media. The media mostly indulged in Muslim-bashing at the time. There is much that is progressive in Islam about women though it is not practised due to male-dominated values. This aspect that Islam treats women better than many other religious traditions or legal systems, was never brought out in any media analysis. The only thing projected in the media was that Islam treats women badly. The Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi controversy is another example. Undoubtedly, some Muslim leaders were trying to exploit the issue for their own benefits. The language press particularly gave an impression that it is a settled fact that Babar had demolished a Ram temple in Ayodhya and now it is time the Hindus vindicated their honour by constructing a temple after removing the mosque. The regional media, particularly the Hindi press, gave a distinct impression that it is ironical that Hindus cannot construct a Ram temple in their own country. The leading Hindi newspapers from UP published highly exaggerated versions of incidents in Ayodhya in 1990 when Mulayam Singh Yadav, the then chief minister, tried to prevent kar sevaks from reaching Ayodhya. Highly emotional stories were published with exaggerated accounts of police brutalities. It was reported that hundreds of people were shot dead, a totally false claim. Even the Press Council reprimanded these papers for publishing false accounts of what happened at Ayodhya. The press often fails to highlight the positive contributions of Indian Muslims that can create a different image of the community. For example, Col.Wajihuddin laid down his life fighting in Kargil. On hearing the news his mother said with pride that "my son has laid down his life for the country and I wish I had more sons to give for the country." This was not carried even by the English media. I read this in an Urdu paper Inquilab. Asian Age reported this, but failed to project it properly and prominently. Even committed secular papers who are sympathetic to the minorities do not have reporters and commentators who specialise in minority affairs and have intimate knowledge of minority communities. Even the secular commentators often homogenise the minorities ignoring their differing religious and political perceptions. When Punjab was faced with Khalistani movement, many papers wrote as if all Sikhs were supporting the militants and stood for Khalistan. Even those Sikhs who complained of serious human rights violations in Punjab were suspected of harbouring Khalistani sympathies. Even a cursory study of the Punjab problem could have shown that a large number of Sikhs like Mazhabis were totally opposed to the creation of Khalistan. It is only a section of Jat Sikhs who felt their political and economic aspirations were being thwarted, supported the extremist movement. It was very similar to the partition plan, supported by upper class Muslims in minority provinces who felt that their aspirations in independent India will be thwarted by the Hindu majority. It was this fear, and not religious fanaticism, that induced them to support partition. Recently there have been many attacks on the Christian community by the Sangh Parivar over the issue of conversion. The Christians were stereotyped and the media, particularly in north and western India, wrote as if every Christian in this country was for conversion. I have spoken to several Christians throughout India who are opposed to conversions. They favour dialogue to conversion. What we refer to as 'inter-faith dialogue' has been popularised by the Christian organisations in contemporary India. Though Akbar had started it in medieval period, the tradition was lost and in our own times it was certainly revived by Christian organisations. Thus it is wrong to describe all Christians as conversion-enthusiasts. So much so that even an attempt was made by a section of the press to accuse Mother Teresa of inducing conversions forcibly. Also, all conversions are seen as being carried out through 'coercion', 'fraud' and 'inducement'. Whatever communally inclined politicians allege about the minorities is reported as if it is an established truth. When Christian establishments and churches came under attack in Dangs from the VHP and Bajrang Dal, the Gujarati media wrote anti-Christian articles and hostile news items. During communal riots, highly coloured stories about Muslim fanaticism are published without verification. Riots in Ahmedabad, particularly in 1969 and 1985, spread like wild fire because some Gujarati papers carried rumours prominently. Next day these items were contradicted in a corner on the inside pages. The damage was done. In every religious community there are all sorts of people -- liberal, secular, fanatical and fundamentalist. No community can be fully liberal secular nor can it be singularly fundamentalist. Yet when it comes to minority communities, among whom a few vocal elements may indulge in fanatical acts, the entire community is held responsible. The voice of liberal-secular Muslims or Christians or Sikhs is dismissed as some kind of an exception. The vast majority, who are voiceless, is thought to be fundamentalist or fanatical. There is another aspect which has to be seriously considered. There are very few attempts to project the positive contributions made by the minorities in the process of nation-building. A large number of Muslims made supreme sacrifices in the freedom struggle. Who can forget the sacrifices made by Pathans under the leadership of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan? This hardly comes through in our media. Even today there are many Muslims in various fields making important contributions. It is hardly ever highlighted. There are quite a few academics from social sciences like Prof. Irfan Habib, Prof. Mushirul Hasan, Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad and several others who have taken liberal-secular stand on many controversial issues and have made seminal contributions in their own respective fields. The Sikhs and Christians also have made significant contributions in nation-building. Christian contribution to education is most significant. But for their institutions, thousands of Indians would not have acquired the educational attainments they have made. But when some politicians started a controversy about conversions, a section of the media began to write as if all Christians were busy converting others to Christianity. It should be borne in mind that all communities in India are contributing to nation-building. This is certainly not the monopoly of any single community or caste. The problem of minorities should be seen in a dynamic frame-work, not in a static one which the media often applies. The behaviour of the communities change according to emerging contexts. For example, the attitude of Muslims in north India to Pakistan has undergone a sea-change. Recent political developments in Pakistan have brought about this change in their attitude. Today there is much greater enthusiasm among Muslims about modern education as they have realised that education is a must for the betterment of their lot. If they are behind in the race, it is more because of poverty than their resistance to education. The ground realities are changing fast and these changes are being absorbed by all, whether the minorities or the majority. The media should stop viewing the minorities in a static frame-work. [GO TOP]
Kancha Ilaiah Dalit
Commonsense That India is a country of castes is wellknown. But what is not known is what this institution of caste has done in every field of human activity. Caste, apart from many other things, has mutilated the process of our history. It has suppressed the voice of the actual makers of history. Many brahminical critics, rather grudgingly, accept that the voices of chandalas and sudras were suppressed during the ancient, medieval and colonial periods; but they argue that in post-Independence India, the situation has improved quite considerably. Historically, the instrument of writing was under the control of brahminical forces, hence the sudra-chandalas were not allowed to use that instrument of preservable communication -- the written word. If any sudra or chandala acquired that skill, they were made to write the brahminical narratives (like Valmiki writing anti sudra-chandala Ramayana). Perhaps the only ancient text that was written by a sudra with a narrative of sudras themselves was Sudraka’s Mrutyakatika, a classical play. From the medieval and colonial periods, nothing noteworthy written by sudra-chandalas had been allowed to come down to us. What I propose to do in this article is to nail down the arguments of the brahminical forces that the modern -- in other words post-Independent India -- mass media opened up its channels to the dalitbahujans. Modern media has three channels; press, audio and video. In all of them the dalitbahujans hardly got any space. The Indian press, right from the freedom struggle period, was completely under the control of brahminical forces. Even the book publishing industry was under their hegemonic control. They wrote books about their own selves, created "educated" beings out of their own image. It was a cycle that rotated within their social structure; the lives of others did not figure in their discourses. During the freedom struggle -- starting with Rajaram Mohun Roy, the Indian press began to solve the problems of only a section of the society. Since then, what is the space that has been given to dalitbahujans? Upto the emergence of Ambedkar, the Indian press did not even realise that dalits and bahujans are people about whom a written discourse should take place. The history of Euro-American white racism was not as bad as that of Indian caste relations. Caste destroyed the human essence in us. The Euro-American whites did not remain so distanced from the blacks. They did not treat them as beings unworthy of writing about. The Hindu brahminical forces treated the dalitbahujans as unworthy of being written about. Is it not surprising that no established firm published a single book of Ambedkar? Not many newspapers -- except a few like the Times of India -- published articles written by him. At the same time Gandhi, Nehru, Patel (though Patel was not a thinker) had lots of space to write and were written about. The Indian press always operated at two levels, the national in English and the regional in different local languages. The caste-class nexus was so firm that both national and regional press were owned by the upper castes and the editorial staff also came from the brahminical background. They covered the activities around Hindu temples and occasionally the Muslim mosques. But the very same press did not write, even in a marginal way, about the rituals and religious practices of dalitbahujans. For example, ritual practices around Pochamma, Yellamma, Maisamma (in AP) did not become a story worth reporting. In India the press thinks that the written word is sacred and that it should not be allowed to reach the producers of wealth. The electronic media, which started in the form of radio, was also manned by the brahminical forces. They specifically picked up the narratives of brahminical life and mythology and propogated them. More than the press, the radio-based propaganda established a ‘consent process’ among dalitbahujans. Slowly, they were forced to negate their own self and appreciate the parasitic life-process of the brahmin. The radio never presented the lives of the productive castes as creative and humane. For example, the Indian radio in various ways propagated Ramayana, Mahabharata, etc., but never talked about heroes of dalitbahujans like Jambhavanta and Shambuka. Let alone the dalitbahujan mythology, even the day-to-day struggles of the dalitbahujans did not get any space in All India Radio. The regional channels were no different. The brahmins who were living in different linguistic states quickly established control over the regional radio stations. If any educated dalitbahujan entered the Radio, they were driven out. The only news items that figured in the AIR about dalitbahujans were those about social atrocities against the scheduled castes. The coverage of atrocities had its own negative connotations. A news of atrocity intimidates the SCs more and more. It creates a fear psychosis among the powerless. The more such news items appear, the more they get unnerved. Soon the television became our main source of visual communication. The brahminical narratives now began to be shown in full picturesque forms. The dramas, plays, films, etc., were carefully selected so that the brahminical lifestyles were projected as role models. When they show the lives of dalitbahujans it is in a negative light, unworthy of living. Again, artrocities dominate the coverage. The dead bodies are shown in mutilated forms. This sends the signal that if the rest of them did not behave, they would also have to face similar consequences. The TV for them is not an instrument of entertainment, knowledge or skills; but one of systematic subjugation and manipulation. Thus the Indian media -- press, radio and TV -- has so far not acquired the democratic character that is essential for social transformation. Though it operates in a capitalist economy, its essential character remained brahminical and feudal. The communist and socialist movements should have helped the media transform itself. But these movements in the name of anti-feudal ideology were controlled by the brahmins and other upper castes. Some of its educated cadre entered the media and talked about class but always remained silent about caste. The nexus between right-wing communal Hindutva, brahminical ideology and communist brahminical forces could be seen in their "conspiracy of silence" about caste. The dalitbahujan movements, in the recent past, exposed this brahminism operating in various ideological garbs. This does not mean that there is no differnce between ‘communist brahminism’ and ‘Hindutva brahminism’. The communist brahminism has an ideological position against poverty. The communist media represented that ideological position. The Hindutva brahminism believes in sustaining the class-caste structure. For them, poverty of the dalitbahujan is a desirable condition. Indian media, thus, became a supporting structure for inequality. It did not encourage any struggle for equality. The forces that have been handling the media have never seen it as a means of social change. They have seen it as a means of sustaining their hegemony. In the post-Mandal period, there has been some change as the dalitbahujans are asserting their rights in socio-political life. The rise of dalitbahujan intelligentsia who began to compete with the upper class intelligentsia is slowly entering the world of media. But until and unless the brahminical forces change their understanding of dalitbahujans, the course of social change will remain torturous. The hegemonic forces should stop the process of "toning down the toneless" and provide them with a legitimate space in every branch of Indian media. What is the alternative available to the dalitbahujans? As Gramsci has said, with the historical cunningness that they have mastered, the dominant classes will build a consent system to strengthen their hegemony. Therefore the dalitbahujans, in similar situations, should strive to build and operate communication channels outside the present Indian media structure. Let us not forget the fact that the dalitbahujan masses possess a different mode of commonsense. They have already learnt how to interpret the news, stories, plays, dramas that appear in brahminical media. I would describe this commmonsense as "Laloo commonsense." Laloo Prasad Yadav of Bihar knows how to read the brahminical news "upside down". He subverts the message of the brahminical news channels and makes the masses understand this reality. Laloo Prasad seems to have learnt this mode of "upside down" understanding from his childhood experiences. Historically, the dalitbahujan masses seem to possess this commonsense to survive the mechanism of brahminism. This ‘Laloo’ (wise) understanding of dalitbahujan masses is vilified by brahiminical forces as "lallu" (stupid). But there is a non-media-based communication between Laloo Prasad and the dalitbahujans. But for this ‘Laloo commonsense’ communication channel, Laloo Prasad would not have overcome the brutal attacks of the media on him. The dalitbahujans as constant communicators with nature do know how to communicate among themselves independent of the brahminical channels. They are the ones who understand the language of animals, birds, trees and plants. They are the originators of language itself. If they realise their potential, no brahminical mass media can stop their transformation. The brahminical forces depend only on ‘propaganda kills’ and not on ‘productive skills.’ The dalitbahujans on the other hand depend on their productive skills. It is this that makes the dalitbahujans the base of Indian society. The day when they carry ‘Laloo commonsense’ to its logical end, all the brahminical media will collapse like a house of cards. [GO TOP]
Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr. Arun
Shourie and The critics of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the political arena, in the social and media circles have found a ready cause in the gruesome murder of Graham Staines and his sons, Timothy and Philip. Their protests sound hollow because the work Staines engaged in for 30 years in remote Orissa makes no sense to many of them. Staines was a religious man, who would have been a total alien in the metropolitan cocktail circuit. A significant part of the vocal minority of India’s intelligentsia belongs to this drawing-room set. They can easily identify with a Sunderlal Bahuguna or a Medha Patkar who are fighting against big dams and modern projects, and are deriving maximal media mileage out of it all. The metropolitan "thinking lot" love people whose protests are fashion statements. Staines through his missionary tenure of three decades would never have found favour with our earnest columnists. He would never have impressed our university-educated, khadi-clad humanists. The hypocrisy of the intelligentsia is all the more outrageous because they find an easy target in the lumpen elements of the Bajrang Dal for the attacks on the churches in Dangs in Gujarat and in the savage lynching they carried out in Manoharpur. Yes, the criminal elements with the tacit support of the Hindu fascist groups like the Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) are responsible for the arson and the killings. The BJP cannot escape the moral responsibility either, despite Prime Mnister Atal Behari Vajpayee’s honest anguish and despair for its complicity in the deed. Many of us who wanted to consider the BJP as a legitimate rightwing, conservative party, are compelled to acknowledge that it has shown clear streaks of fascism in the last few months through its sheer unwillingness to tackle the lumpen elements in its ranks and among its allies. So we once again hear the familiar cry for a fight against the fascist stormtroopers. But Christian-baiting did not originate with the lumpen elements. It started in a clear and diabolical fashion in the book of one man. Of course, he is not alone in his hostility towards the Christian missionaries in India. He has only furnished the specious details to provide ballast to popular prejudice. And yet, not one critic in the media or in the political parties has dared to name the man. The reason is simple: he is part of the cocooned intelligentsia, and in India the middle class opinion-makers do not break ranks with one another. Yet, Mr Arun Shourie needs to be named. Mr Shourie is respected by his admirers as well as his critics. Very few would like to engage in an argument with him. He has the intimidating skills of a criminal lawyer. He marshals facts, little and insignificant ones, culled out from obscure sources, wrenching them from their contexts -- his is a rare case of a man who pours closely over texts but does not observe the norms of contextuality -- and conjures conspiratorial theories out of them. A few years ago he was invited by the Bishops Conference to speak to the clergy. Mr Shourie displayed admirable intellectual candour by pointing out in the lectures that the missionaries who came to India clearly hoped to convert the whole country to Christianity. And in his characteristic manner, he quoted chapter and verse to prove his case. Mr Shourie is a polemicist in the manner of the 17th century English pamphleteers. He does not look beyond the little details. The big ideas, the big arguments do not matter to him. He does not have any intellectual framework. His book, Missionaries in India is an unvarnished diatribe against the Christian evangelists in India. He has built up enough evidence in this book about the hopes which many missionaries entertained about converting a "pagan" people to the true faith. But there is nothing new or diabolical about the missionary venture. Any religion which depends on proselytisation -- and Christianity is not alone in this -- is bound to believe that it will turn whole communities to its own faith. That is how Buddhist missionaries spread their religion across Asia. The prejudices, the ignorance and the arrogance, the follies, and even the corruption, are all part of any missionary history, whether it is Buddhist, Christian or Islamic. Mr Shourie emphasises the evangelical zeal and motives. But he does not consider the evidence regarding the fallout. The most crucial fact is ignored. The missionaries failed to achieve what they set out to do. In the bargain, they did something wonderful. They built schools and hospitals in remote areas, they wrote grammars and dictionaries for some of the Indian languages. And in the case of some Indian languages, they even invented the modern vernacular, of course for the purposes of preaching. And the missionaries left an indelible stamp on reformers of modern Hinduism like Raja ram Mohun Roy, Swami Dayananda Saraswati and Swami Vivekananda. They imbibed the evangelical zeal and the educational methods of the Christian missionaries. In many ways, the poison which has spilled over into the attacks against the missionaries, and which is expressed by the VHP, the RSS and the Bajrang Dal spokesmen, has its intellectual origin in Mr Shourie’s book. It is indeed a slender connection. It is difficult to read Mr Shourie’s convoluted, impassioned and envenomed prose. Not many in the BJP or in the Sangh Parivar are either interested in, or capable of, reading his books. But it is people like him who provide that passing intellectual justification to the criminals in their unthinking minds. It had happened in Nazi Germany. Hitler’s stormtroopers would not have heard of Houston Chamberlain, who expounded theories of race. Nor did they listen to philosophers like Martin Heidegger when they gave a metaphysical clothing to the diabolical attitudes of the Nazis. But there is the undeniable silken thread which connects the intellectual with his hate messages and the man who translates that hate into gory action. Mr Shourie is guilty for this reason. Those who protest today so eloquently did not speak a word against Mr Shourie’s imbalanced polemic when the book came out. This is not the only occasion he has indulged in this kind of blinkered arguments of diabolical intent. His attack on B. R. Ambedkar is another case in point. Here also he picked out the details, the episodes, the phases from Ambedkar’s life and the phrases from his speeches to show that Ambedkar was not the formidable legislator we know him to be. And that his role in the making and writing of the Indian Constitution is to be traced to reactionaries like K. M. Munshi or to draftsmen like B. Shiva Rau. And in the Shourie manner, he missed the woods for the trees. He looked at the clauses, the sub-clauses, the amendments, and who literally introduced them. And forgot that Ambedkar’s contribution was not at the clerical level, but lay in the spirit and tenor of his arguments. He forgot that Ambedkar stood like a man inspired by the majesty of law, and that he spoke fearlessly against the "grammar of anarchy" and dared to be critical of Mahatma Gandhi’s agitational politics. And that he warned the Constituent Assembly against worshipping heroes, however worthy of adoration they may be. But Mr Shourie had no use for the magisterial virtues of the man because he had decided to debunk him. He was not alone in this. The others in his class refused to come out against him. There was not a single rebuttal from the legion of liberals in defense of Ambedkar. There was the shameful silence of his fellow-intellectuals in the country’s metropolises. When the innocent and enraged Dalit students, who could not match Mr Shourie’s skills as a criminal lawyer, blackened his face at a meeting in Pune, Mr Shourie promptly turned the episode in his favour. He pointed out that the Dalits were incapable of meeting arguments with arguments. It is not enough to blame the lumpen elements, the criminal gangs. The intellectuals who spread hatred should be criticised too. Rightwing ideologues like Mr Shourie should be countered with arguments. His blind prejudices, his intellectual failures must be clearly exposed. Yes, he is a mild-mannered man in real life. Friends find it difficult to pin him down. This is the danger of intellectual bon homie when political discourse in a large country like India is confined to a small set of people. It is no different from the danger which lies in believing that only one family has the charisma to lead India. [GO TOP] |
