part0012

Before the advent of television as a medium of information, the information requirements of most households was met by the daily newspaper, commentary and analysis through weekly or monthly magazines, in English or vernacular along with, of course, the gossip that one indulged in at cards in the club, or by meeting others during the Ramayana or Bhagwat discourse in the evening. Decades back, Marshall McLuhan, at the infancy of the television medium had understood its intrusive character. It is now a part of daily life all over the world, increasingly in India. Much as a latter-day mobile phone has become ubiquitous and indispensable, the constant blare of the television set in most homes is a proximate cause for early deafness of most middle-aged householders. My grandson long back asked me how my grandfather could have lived without electricity—I had no credible answer. Indeed, he could well have asked me how could I grow up without the help of television, or even the computer or the cell phone, all of which are now indispensable for ‘normal life’. I even saw a couple talking to each other on their cell phones during their evening walk. Clearly we are a civilization ‘infotaining’ ourselves to oblivion .

Indian television, both English and vernacular, which started off mostly to entertain has now become increasingly didactic, stridently so. It perceives its role as one of ‘engineering change’. While many anchors pursue their own hobby-horses, the compulsion to ‘convert’ the audience to their own perspective is increasingly evident. While TRPs is the operative mantra, it is subtly intertwined with the anchor’s desire to project loudly a particular point of view. Complex cross-holdings of controlling interests in channels and media outlets are a matter of public interest—where agendas of individuals or business houses can impinge seriously on national life. Considering that the ownership of each channel generally vests, however indirectly, with a political party, or a large business house, the channel becomes an important vehicle for pursuing a political or corporate strategy, well hidden through much camouflage—the message has to come through, very subtly and quietly, but definitely. McLuhan had surely anticipated all this.

The main English language channels have limited access, in the sense that they are watched by a particular class of people in urban areas and towns—the educated middle and upper classes. Clearly this group has limited impact on electoral politics. However, it has a disproportionately large impact on what the media in general has to say. It moulds the opinion of the middle class, which impacts the overall approach of a society. Thus, the English media has a much greater overall reach in terms of impact, than what its viewership warrants.

Most of the anchors on the main channel at prime time are highly self-assured, brash to the point of arrogance and think of themselves as ‘messiahs of change’. They pick up a point, flog it quite aggressively, till they are assured that everyone is convinced. However, this objective is inherently contradictory to the need of having a ‘balanced debate’ with competing perspectives stressed by knowledgeable persons. By the very nature of the medium, a well argued, knowledgeable programme with competing points of view expressed sharply, but politely, with thrust and counter-thrust is not the recipe for success in Indian television channels. Perhaps experience has shown that this does not help with TRPs. Accordingly what is finally produced and dished-out is a kind of combination of kick-boxing, fixed WWF wrestling and 20-20 cricket, as the format for throwing light on a complex issue. The anchor sees the need to have fireworks (not just polite differences), personal attacks (not graceful sharp thrusts) and outright hostility (not polite disagreement). All these are indispensable elements in the soap-opera that the evening news-hour delivers.

Most anchors are rudely inquisitorial, and pillory the guests, particularly spokesmen of political parties with great aggression. A casual observer may feel that an intimidating attack has been mounted. Indeed I have even heard some anchors tell the guest, ‘you are a liar’, sometimes repeatedly so within one programme. Astonishingly, the party representative swallows even this unparliamentary language—he must have much compulsion to stay on in the programme; it should be added that the abusive attack is most often not unjustified. Usually there is a mixture of politicians of different colours (all of whom are agreed that there should be no change in the larger sense, as they are the main beneficiaries) and two or three ‘experts’ whose views are generally highly predictable. Usually about eight to ten guests are invited to a one-hour programme, of which about 25 minutes are taken up by advertisements, another 25 minutes through exposition, analysis, discourse and long-winded questions and interruptions by the anchor; the guests get about one minute each to speak during the hour, about 30 seconds in each spell, to cover a complex matter in great detail! Since the ‘guest’ is conscious of the very limited time given to him, and is not sure at what instant the anchor will lose interest and ‘switch’ him off, his comments are made in a breathless manner with often short-hand language, barely comprehensible, in great hurry. By contrast, when a politician is ‘batting’ an inconvenient point, he expansively digresses, filibusters shamelessly, is ready to resort to leisurely banalities and objects strongly when ‘interrupted’ and asked to come to the point, complaining bitterly that he is not given sufficient ‘space’. It all makes for interesting theatre. In politically contentious matters, where two parties or politicians get into a dog-fight, much heat gets generated, and even less light is thrown on the subject. All in all, it is good entertainment for all, if you consider WWE to be fun .

There is one other significant trend that needs to be noticed in such shows over the past decade or so. Earlier, a minister or the high dignitary in a senior position was treated by the anchor with kid-gloves, with a hint of deference and allowed his say without much interruption. Thank goodness the TV talk-shows and the anchors have come of age. The VIP, minister and the ‘spokesman’ are treated with aggression, questioned often viciously and frequently treated with disbelief and a hint of disdain. This is an extremely welcome trend. The VIP/minister, who hitherto had been kept on a pedestal, and who used to ‘talk-down’ to ordinary people, anchors and fellow guests not exempted, are rightly often brought down to ground level; occasionally even floored brutally—much of it well deserved. Most anchors, insufferable as they may often be, need to be felicitated for treating the VIP/minister as he deserves to be—with incredulity, disbelief and distrust, with a hint of disdain.

Most anchors have to be, or at least pose to be ‘larger than life’. In the situation in which they are placed, almost certainly they make themselves the centre of focus and attention, even if large issues relating to an earthquake or war or Naxal terror or collapse of the currency are discussed. The main focus is the anchor and not the event. Let me illustrate this through an example from a totally different sphere, where the observer becomes more important than the person observed—much like the TV anchors assume for themselves greater importance than the events discussed, or the experts discussing them. I was walking down the Marina Beach in Chennai one morning recently. The entire walk is adorned with statues of great men and women down the ages—Mahatma Gandhi, Avvayyar, Tiruvalluvar and other giants who have contributed to Tamil culture, literature or society. Near Triplicane, opposite the cricket ground where I recall having played at least three league cricket matches, is the statue of Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose—an imposing figure, in the elegant and impressive uniform that we have always seen him in. I read the legend at the base of the statue. It mentioned the name of S.C. Bose. Below that it also named the person who unveiled the statue along with the date—Mu. Karunanidhi, the then chief minister of Tamil Nadu. What was remarkable was that the letters describing the name of the person unveiling the statue were written in a huge font, three-times bigger than the letters of S.C. Bose, whose statue it was. Clearly the reporter is much bigger than the event reported; the war correspondent is more important than the war itself. Christian Amanpour IS the news, what she reports is of lesser importance! Thucydides was a bigger character than the wars that were lost—Sanjaya was more important than the events of the Mahabharata war, indeed than the Bhagwat Gita . Our anchors are 100-times larger than life, bigger than any event on which they are acting as coordinators for the discussion.

Despite the indifferent quality of the material dished out, one important aspect needs to be highlighted. In the past decade or so, one has seen a sharp deterioration in the quality of governance. The venality of the executive, at the Centre and in the states, has seen exponentially higher manifestation. The performance and contribution of the legislature to governance, which has never been seen in good light for the past six decades has sharply gone down in the last decade or so. The judiciary, willy-nilly, has become more active, due to force of circumstances, to fill up the vacuum so to speak. Some constitutional and other agencies have also risen up to fill the void. The main phenomenon has been the rise of television as a medium to take on a high-profile role in policy and in implementation areas.

Let me illustrate this with a couple of examples. Some websites can give you the annual list of scams over the past three decades; it is a mind-boggling collection of grand-thuggery. The system has got away with hardly any heads rolling or people taken to account. In 2010, when the Commonwealth Games scam broke out with the damning report from CAG, Times Now channel took it up with great vigour—Arnab Goswami, the anchor, went to town on the subject. I was a guest on one of the sessions blasting the CWG organizers, and baying for their blood. When asked my opinion, I had condemned the obvious wrong-doing roundly but had predicted that in three-months’ time it will all die out, there will be new scams taking up the place of old. The second part of my comment has been proved right, repeatedly so. Happily, I have been proved wrong on the first part. For the first time, the crusading approach of television channels has actually resulted in orchestrating and raising to a high-decibel national consciousness, the enormity of the crimes and the venality of the perpetrators. Soon thereafter was the 2-G scam, whose fuse was lit by CAG, the flame was fanned furiously by the media, and finally the explosion came through the landmark verdict of the Supreme Court; a Union minister actually going to jail, and a whole bunch of licenses cancelled. How did this happen? Firstly, there was CAG, who finally stood up to his constitutional role as a critic of public expenditure, recognizing that he was a servant of the people, of the Constitution and had an adversarial—not cozy, crony-relationship—with the executive. This had happened many times before but for the very vigorous highlighting of the massive fraud by an aggressive media, this would have been swept under the carpet. The apex court also, as the saviour it has been in the past, played its role. Are we now seeing a new paradigm in public affairs? That scams and wrong-doings which are discovered in public space, will not be allowed to be washed out, swept under the carpet, brazenly ignored and waited out? Enough cannot be said in praise of the media, particularly television media, in rising to the occasion. The print media has always played its traditional role of being a critic when required. The television media has carved a new niche for itself.

The tone set by Times Now has now become the standard, followed by other English channels and now increasingly by Hindi channels. The Antrix-Devas deal, which was in a sense the forerunner of the 2-G scam, got aborted, as the evil design was highlighted by the media. I recall that at the time when the Coalgate report was getting finalized, and had not hit the headlines, I had come informally to know of its potential reach and depth and had played a small part in highlighting the issues, initially on Times Now, well before it became public knowledge. In older times, clearly this would have been thrown in the dustbin. The Adarsh Housing scam and the Vadra expose are instances of the publicity glare that the media has been able to mount on wrong-doings. The Anna Hazare Lok Pal movement, highlighted by the media, had played its role—however a wily political class had in a multi-party conspiracy mode, managed to scuttle the establishment of the Lok Pal—which politician wants an umpire, when the political class can be the player, the fixer, the bowler, the batsman, the opponent and its own umpire as well as its own board of control? The Constitution had inadvertently created for the political class no checks and balances; 120 crore people may want a Lok Pal, but 1,000 politicians will not permit it. However, to the credit of the media, it pursued large national issues, possibly for TRP reasons, but it has been on the side of the angels, not the devilish politicians.

I, as much as nearly anyone else, am aware of the weaknesses of the visual media, how the financing structures of the major houses are controlled through remote mechanisms, the compulsions of the programmers and anchors to follow certain directions and the blackmailing potential of the press in general. I have also heard criticism from a number of middle class arm-chair critics, who sneer at the ‘arrogance’, self-importance and one-track approach of the anchors, all of it partly or mostly true. However, the signal contribution of the television media to recent attempts for system-change cannot be underestimated.

Of course, each anchor has his own pet theories and approaches—perhaps in many instances he has been given a brief. Thus, in a programme ‘who was the best PM in the past 50 years’, the staff of the channel would call me for my views, ostensibly in preparation for a ‘balanced’ guest list. I was not be invited to the show if I had views totally differing from that of the channel. In the live programme itself, if I referred strongly to a particular ex-PM, not favoured by the anchor, he or she would cut me off—pleasantly in the beginning, and roughly if I persisted. I would not be given another chance to express my opinion in the whole hour. If it were a recorded programme, normally I would be allowed to have my say, but when one saw the final version broadcast, one could see heavy editing and interposition of my comments in such a manner that it would have least impact! It is interesting to see the many games that are played in this manner. In general, the channel has assessed me carefully and has brought me in as an ‘expert’, not so much to express my own expert views, but to get my views to buttress the theme that is to be projected.

There are many hardy perennials in nearly every channel, whose political leanings, affiliations and commitments are well known, masquerading as ‘independent’ experts. Professional journalists as they mostly are, they have built strong constituencies in political and other fields and cannot go too much out of line in any programme. They have carefully built many bridges in the past, and are anxious not to destroy any of them. It is often interesting to see the specious arguments and interposition of ‘facts’ that they trot out, appearing to be neutral but in fact to mount predetermined support or to defend or attack this or that point of view. Their sophistry in finding arguments to buttress prespecified points of view, in contradiction to all known facts, often deserve rueful admiration. Highly articulate as many of them are, nearly everyone has a biased point of view on every issue, perhaps based on their political leanings and support base. Sadly even so-called independent, expert views are highly skewed.

It is interesting to see how each such public affairs chat show has its own character, depending on the anchor, participants, issues and the relative political temperature in which it is discussed. Some debates are dominated by emotion, some by facts, others by logic or reason—however, partisanship is the permanent flavour. Thus, commonly, when you have someone like Shashi Tharoor, a Union minister, you can hear Oxford or Cambridge English, too sophisticated even for the British Parliament, in possibly the kind of language that Keats or Shakespeare would have used if they were on the television show today, with impeccable diction—however totally devoid of any content whatever. As Eliza Doolittle would say ‘words, words, nothing but words …’; a latter-day Disraeli or Gladstone but without substance. Like Tharoor, one sees a number of ‘debaters’ permanently sporting a superior supercilious smile, implying that all others in the programme are idiots (not always untrue!), coming out with pithy one-liners, which sound quite impressive but mean little in the context. One can also see very high powered lawyers, in their profession engaged in defending skullduggery by top corporates, appearing as ‘independent’ experts on legal matters to criticize public policy, obviously propounding theories designed to project partisan views—there are at least three on view of this variety. They appear extremely logical, public-spirited and appearing to voice public interest perspectives, but quietly slip in a couple of references supporting their professional interests—this could be le ss objectionable if at least they declared their direct interest in particular clients. At least an eminent lawyer like Abhishek Singhvi gets introduced as a party spokesman—he could be as partisan as he wished, which he generally is in the most outrageous manner, but usually with a smile. In most hour-long talk shows, it usually takes about 15 minutes for the participants to ‘warm-up’ and then the fireworks start; ‘Guests’ accusing and abusing each other, statements made simultaneously by three or four—each at the top of the voice, gasping for breath—till a ‘climax’ is reached. Then a new round starts!

It is equally interesting to note how the nature of coverage by the media, both visual and written, subtly changes with perceptions of changing political fortunes of parties and personalities. Thus, for example, in the late summer of 2013, as the conventional assessment is that the stars of the Congress party are waning, die-hard vocal and strident supporters are slowly muting their voices, reducing the ‘volume’, making their comments increasingly ambivalent, and bracing themselves for an eventuality where they can make the volte-face in a slow graduated manner, so that they are not ‘found-out’. As an outsider with a good look inside, I can see with much amusement the trauma and the uncertainties suffered by professional commentators!

The other criticism of the media can be that it focuses on items which instantly titillate. Major issues like education, health, poverty and Naxalism which are all of significant national interest are addressed only in the context of specific events or episodes. There is hardly any sustained coverage of large national issues, except when an ‘explosion’ takes place. Clearly the eye is on TRPs—the ‘ratings’—perhaps greater sustained attention to national issues would be warranted. With respect to the visual media, one more comment may be made. It may be recalled that the Jessica Lal murder case, the Nirbhaya rape, the Arushi murder and the Durga Nagpal suspension case all received major sustained focus on television media. The common factor is that all these episodes took place in or in the vicinity of Delhi. These symbolize the violence done to the rule of law, in a routine manner across India; however, Delhi events were the ones that highlighted the atrocities. Perhaps this is natural, since television centres are focused in the metros but it is still not fully explained why similar incidents in Mumbai, Chennai or Bangalore do not hit focused and sustained television coverage, as these events did.

Another aspect needs to be highlighted. One often finds that an important story, which has gained currency and attracted much public attention, suddenly gets killed. One would never know how and in what manner that all media suddenly drops a topic, as if it never happened. In the US, it is a common phenomenon that where a subject is seen as affecting ‘national interest’ adversely, the media itself avoids touching it, or stops voluntarily addressing the matter on a prompting from the White House. The Indian press or media clearly does not have that level of discipline or even the concept of impact on ‘national interest’. However, we still see the phenomenon of stories suddenly disappearing. The conclusion is inescapable that the media is susceptible to be influenced by a ‘hidden hand’! Indeed the alleged Vadra shenanigans, in collaboration with DLF and the Government of Haryana were reported in the press as early as 2010. Despite its explosive nature, it dropped out of sight magically, till it was revived by the media some time in 2013, again mysteriously. It is also curious to note that in late August 2013 there was a brief news item that the new CAG had ordered discontinuation of an inquiry on the subject already started by the previous CAG—as explosive a news item as any; curiously no newspaper or TV picked it up for analysis or discussion. One wonders why! I have time and again seen sensitive stories, where the correspondent has interviewed me or taken a byte from me not surfacing. When I ask the correspondent as to what happened, he would give a sheepish smile and say: ‘don’t ask me, the story has been killed.’

A picture may be worth a thousand words, however, the written word still carries weight compared to the spoken. I write a regular column in a major English language newspaper, which is carried in other papers as well. From the response that I receive from readers, I see the reach and impact that this media has. No doubt English language newspapers reach a limited segment of society, but this readership is quite aware of the issues in detail. Many responses I receive from readers are of high quality, with significant thought content. I should also add that many letters are critical, and now and then are abusive in nature. Despite the sharply growing reach of the visual media, the daily newspapers still have a strong presence in opinion making.

Vernacular newspapers have a far greater reach and readership in India. According to the All India Readership Survey 2012, Dainik Jagran and Dainik Bhaskar between them have an ‘average issue readership’ of about 31 million daily; compare this to the English newspaper the Times of India , the largest selling English newspaper in the world—yes, world—with a corresponding figure of 7.6 million. This is a measure of the reach of our vernacular press. Add to this the circulation of the other language newspapers, Tamil, Gujarati, Bengali etc., and one can get a picture of the widespread readership. While many newspapers are frequently partisan in their approach, there are still highly respected vernacular papers, which are fiercely independent in their outlook. The ones with larger circulations and better reputations are quite outspoken and do not take sides—a tribute to the readership they cater to. For example, Dinamani , the Tamil newspaper that often carries my pieces, is totally independent and expresses its views openly and fearlessly and this in a market with other Tamil Newspapers functioning as mouth-pieces of rival political parties. It is my experience that vernacular papers in general reflect the concerns of ‘real’ India much better. They focus on local issues, with feet on the ground much firmer, while invariably covering fairly accurately regional and national issues. By and large, I have noticed that the vernacular press reflects the concerns of ‘Bharat’ better than the English newspapers, which have a strong metropolitan bias and are geared to the tastes of the urban reader. I get this strong impression based on the responses to my articles in language papers, where the comments are much larger in number and more emotional in content—mofussil readers are strongly involved in the issues, more than their metropolitan counterparts.

The question of regulating the media, visual as well as print, crops up from time to time. Our experience of Indian institutions is that no group of people or profession is able to regulate itself—create its own ‘guild’—for effective self-regulation. The media is no exception. However, the danger of any regulation from outside is that ‘big brother’ will act as a censor, which will be inimical to public interest. This is a very delicate and complex issue, and no readymade solution is available. There is no doubt that the clout of the media, especially the visual media is sharply on the increase; television is now slowly becoming a bulwark for the protection of liberty and democracy, much like an active higher judiciary is playing a magnificent role in saving our democracy. A vigilant and active media, along with reawakened constitutional institutions, along with an emergent enlightened social media, supported by the Right to Information Act are now emerging as saviours of our democracy. In the circumstances, one would be chary of suggesting any outside control mechanism over the media in the present stage, till the media itself over-reaches its self-appointed mandate.

One quick word on the Press Council of India, currently chaired by the garrulous Markandey Katju. While the body itself is toothless, its chairman regularly fires, like a loose cannon on all and sundry subjects. Even though the council is not a government body, it is an institution in the public domain, its chairman is in some senses a public official. While citizen Katju has the full right to speak his mind on any subject under the sun, clearly he ought to impose some discipline on himself with respect to the range, volume and content of his views so long as he holds office. Since he speaks on so many public issues, sooner or later some of these will come up for consideration in the Press Council; as an ex-judge, would he recuse himself in that event? In any case such free expression of views is akin to the loose talk indulged in by Amartya Sen on fields well beyond his expertise. Charles Lindberg, the famous aviator, who did the first solo flight across the Atlantic, and who was a great national hero in the US was silenced in the public when he spoke on issues related to the second world war. Amartya Sen will perhaps carry greater weight in what he says if he sticks to the areas of his recognized expertise.

A recent Washington Post international survey has found India the ‘second-most racist’ country in the world after Jordan. Whatever the credibility of the survey, surely it will be foolhardy to reject it out of hand as ‘biased’. Caste, communal, untouchability and other societal differences, indeed tensions and intolerance, are well known to be widely prevalent in the country. Caste and community are the two main factors influencing elections in our ‘democracy’. The media could play a quiet role in improving the ground conditions. In nearly every television show or movie in the US, one can see, apart from the usual white, an Afro-American, generally a Hispanic, an Asian (mostly of Chinese origin), and these days the occasional sub-continental. In movies, or television comedies or other shows and also in advertisements you see this pattern, which has evolved and become a part of the organization of these shows in the US in a natural manner. Generally the non-white, unless the circumstances so warrant is shown in a neutral or positive light, in a natural manner, without apparent contrivance—be it a comedy or tragedy, or even in the ubiquitous advertisements. Surprisingly, most characters in our television shows, especially advertisements, have to be fair-skinned, ‘handsome’ men and women, carefully selected and conveying a subtle arrogant message of ‘racial’ superiority on the one hand and implied contempt for ‘lesser humans’ on the other. Without being artificial about it, I am sure that our media should now learn to be ‘inclusive’ in the best possible sense and learn to project people from all walks, backgrounds and segments in a naturally positive manner. That will be conducive to greater social cohesion. The US as a multi-racial society understood this long back that the media is a powerful vehicle for fostering social coherence, tolerance and mutual understanding in a harmonious society. Without appearing to be artificial, it needs to show different types of people in a positive light. This is clearly not a subject for a public debate, or for directions to be issued by the I&B ministry. This is a thought, if spontaneously acceptable and implemented in good faith by decision-makers in the media, will go a long way in naturally bringing more harmony in our complex multi-dimensional society.

I am frequently in demand as an ‘expert’ for many television talk shows, particularly where the issues relate to governance, administration or controversial issues relating to the ‘common man’. I guess that I am seen as a ‘neutral’, but a strong critic of the establishment. When ‘establishment-bashing’ is on the agenda, I would normally be a good bet! Many of my friends ask me as to why I appear on television so regularly and accept nearly every invitation. I have a semi-facetious answer—‘in my own house, or my golf or other private circles, nobody wants to listen to my views, even if I wish to thrust them on them. When somebody sends me a car, and politely asks me to comment on this or that, and gives me an audience, why shouldn’t I do that!’

In addition, participation in television programmes and writing for the press gives me the feeling of being continually involved in public affairs and having the opportunity to contribute to the evolution of social thinking on matters of governance and public interest, however miniscule and inconsequential. Apart from these, these give me an opportunity to meet a wide range of people with diverse interests, thus broadening the range and scope of my involvement in matters of public interest. A number of my friends, well meaning, have asked me as to why I ‘cheapen’ myself by such frequent public exposure on television and elsewhere, particularly when I have no ambitions of any public position. The answer is that I believe that I have some experience in my service life of over 30 years and experience of public matters over a 15 year post-retirement period. For whatever it is worth, it is my duty to express my views on matters of public interest. In any case, apart from anything else, I enjoy it—that is good enough for me.

I live in NOIDA, less than a kilometre from Film City, where most of the television studios are located. ‘Accessibility’ is a key virtue that I possess—much like Michaela in Catch-22, her virtue was that she was ‘available’ whenever and wherever wanted, ‘even keeping her broom held aloft as a banner’! So I guess the channels think of me first whenever they want to fill up a guest slot. I am only five minutes away, and can be counted on to give a ‘first opinion’ on ‘Breaking News’ !

Thanks to my regular television appearances and newspaper columns, I am now a fairly well recognized ‘celebrity’, in airports and in clubs. The predictable reaction of those who see me for the first time is to give the unspoken impression ‘we thought you were a great person—we are thoroughly disappointed’; or the ‘reality’ is much worse than the television ‘appearances’! With regularity, strangers walk up to me to ask ‘have I seen you somewhere before?’. I have no ready answer except ‘it is not my fault’. Others, even more frequently say, in effect, ‘so, you are the honest Cabinet Secretary’. This is not said in a sarcastic or offensive vein but what is disturbing is the implication that practically every government servant—the senior one is, the higher the applicability—is dishonest. This poor opinion, implying (rightly or wrongly!) that I am the exception, is a highly worrisome thought, a scathing comment on the credibility of the system.