By Pramod Kumar for TwoCircles.net
The media is indeed the Fourth Pillar of democracy and is, therefore, by implication and extension, as relevant as the other three pillars in terms of “checks and balances” aspect of the separation of powers envisaged by the Constitution. The level of transparency and accountability expected of the other pillars devolves on media too.
However, Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, while introducing draft Constitution in the Constituent Assembly in November 1948 had warned “Democracy in India is only a top-dressing on Indian soil which is undemocratic”. We have been and remain a feudal and patriarchal society where institutionalised discrimination against lower castes is a fact of life. The privileged section of the society, the upper castes, has created this unjust system (rebirth and karma-phall theory) since many millennia, and has contrived to inflict an immutable division of people into hierarchical castes. Our media professionals, both on the management and editorial side, hail from the privileged section.
The history too is witness to the fact that the democratic process is often manipulated by various sections for their selfish ends and media happily plays along. Noam Chomsky has also sought to drive home the point that mass media serves as a form of “thought control” in a democracy/society with major organisations systematically bending the truth to serve their vested interests. (Manufacturing Consent – Political Economy of Mass Media).
The importance, relevance and criticality of media have drastically changed over the last two decades because of its unprecedented growth. The new aggrandising media market is a product of economic reforms under the auspices of neo-liberalism. It has also a far greater reach now as the electronic media is able to pull in even semi-literates and illiterates too. However, it is doubtful if the media recognises a universe, beyond the Corporate, its allies, the advertisers and people with the purchasing power, where a majority of the oppressed and marginalised wage a war of survival daily. The proliferation, the extended reach has resulted in “messenger becoming the message”. It is claimed “We are a powerful presence now and when we disseminate information, we create perceptions we need. The perceptions can be discussed and assessed as you will – but we will again – “manufacture” another perception or strengthen that already exists. Bur we now have the wherewithal to create, manufacture, raise and tailor perceptions we want and we do it often”.
Our complexities, contradictions and diversities provide us with the multiplicity of perspectives. The perspective engaging the political discourse currently is that of progress and development through “growth only” in a neo-liberal economic framework and that its “trickle down effect” will eventually reach the last person. Our Prime Minister, Mr. Narendra Modi and the Corporate strongly support it. However, our own empirical experience of the “growth” and the finds of economist Thomas Piketty and Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, tell us that this premise is illusory. The “growth” only deepens the inequalities and inequities and makes rich richer and poor poorer.
The media`s ownership pattern has been re-worked. The terms of employment (contract system) have also changed. This has introduced an element of insecurity in service conditions affecting the balance and objectivity of the profession. A caveat is needed. While the mainstream media, both print and electronic, has aligned with the forces supporting “growth at any cost”, there are a few exceptions in print like the Hindu, Indian Express and niche sites on web which provide space and time for different perspectives and all shades of opinion.
The other media houses or the “neo-media” has broken its compact with the people. It is no longer transparent, responsible or accountable as the Fourth Pillar. Ordinarily, the media is expected to destroy the smoke screens of perceptions and hidden agendas but the “new media’ has excelled in providing a smoke-screen to Mr. Modi`s past baggage and creating a larger than life perception of him. The “neo-media” has downplayed his lifelong association with Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh and its political wing Bhartiya Janta Party. The RSS`s ideology “cultural nationalism or Hindutva” is inspired by “national socialism” which held sway in the first half of 20th Century in Europe. RSS, like the “national socialism”, believes in parallel narratives: one of supremacy and pride and other of subordination and contempt – supremacy of Hindus and subordination of non-Hindus – pride in Civilisational (Vedic) past and contempt for minorities.
The “new media” has, through disproportionate and extremely adulatory portrayal of Mr. Modi, since 2013, promoted him as a “beacon of hope”. He has, we are asked to believe, “moved on” from 2002. The ‘neo-media” claims that Mr. Modi secured the mandate because of his overarching appeal, cutting across social, economic and religious divides. It adds that Mr. Modi has brought new energy and hope and under him, India is now poised to realize its enormous potential. India will, once again, be land of milk and honey, with jobs aplenty and a resplendent technology-driven life style. Mr. Modi has changed the narrative dramatically from policy paralysis and cynicism to arrival of “better days” soon. Many old schemes started during earlier NDA and UPA regimes have been renamed, re-packaged and re-launched along with new schemes like “Make In India, Smart Cities, Skill and Digital India” to transform the lives of Indian people. Mr. Modi`s spiel of better times, in near future, has sounded more like what Sudipta Sen of Kolkata and Bernie Madoff of USA promised to their investors. Hope it does not meet the fate of Sen`s and Madoff`s investors?
The reality, however, is quite different. Mr. Modi has, to this day, not said that he has “moved on from 2002”. The majoritarian prejudices often resurfaced during the Lok Sabha Elections and shattered hurriedly built perception and facade of a leader wedded to “idea of India”. Mr. Modi used loaded terms like “Burqa secularism, pink revolution and 1000 years` slavery” in his speeches and even as Prime Minister, he has granted citizenship to refugees from Pakistan and Bangladesh on the basis of religion and not circumstance. Mr. Modi, his Sarkar and RSS/BJP have been trying, at a subliminal level, to allow “culturally nationalistic” overtones reverberate, at almost all functions, events and programmes by using terms like ‘BHARAT MATA KI JAI” or “VANDE MATRAM” instead of “Hindustan Zindabad” and “Jai Hind” which have had universal acceptance so far. The chant of “HAR HAR MODI” also mimics Hindus` war cry “HAR HAR MAHADEV”.
The “neo-media” has also downplayed the role played by RSS in elections to 16th Lok Sabha. RSS unleashed thousands of its swayamsewaks who left their homes to do door-to-door canvassing in the Hindi heartland. They used the standard divisive discourse, hate speech, love-jihad and spectre of extinction of Hindus as the persuasive arguments. They succeeded, as in Babri Masjid and Gujarat riots cases, to convince the subaltern section of the society also to subsume their problems, hardships and suffering at the hands of Upper Castes, for the greater cause of establishing “Hindu Rashtra, the promised land of Vedic wisdom and purity” and remove the threat of extinction once for all. The swayamsewaks have not given off their sweat for bullet trains, smart cities but to settle scores or avenge the real or imaginary past persecution. The RSS and BJP stalwarts have repeatedly taken up the divisive issues and this has been met with innocuous homilies from Mr. Modi. RSS also tends to keep small fires/issues burning or alive and at election times fans them into conflagration or confrontation to polarise the people. It happened in UP last year and is happening again in Bihar and Karnataka.
Mr. Modi`s foreign visits have also received the usual hysterical response. Ram Madhav of RSS/BJP had worked hard for days and incurring huge expenditure to organise spectacular events, with lots of glitz and razzmatazz. These have been extensively covered by “neo-media”. Its reporters/editors also contributed to hype and hoopla by concentrating only on the already converted Diasporas and studiously ignoring lack of enthusiasm in foreign media and demonstrations against Mr. Modi for his alleged indifference to or contempt for human rights. Is Diasporas conflating returns on invested dollars with a sense of guilt for deserting India after receiving education, largely at the State`s expense, from prestigious Institutions? In any case, sartorial elegance, playing of drums, playfulness of pulling a child`s ears and pious palliatives of co-operation and fight against terror notwithstanding, tangible outcomes are still to materialize.
The “neo-media” has also hailed the slogan “Maximum Governance – Minimum Government”. However, the situation on the ground is quite different. There is a trust deficit amongst the various sections of administration which has resulted in a sort of paranoia. Mr. Modi has not helped the matters by allowing the Secretaries to bypass their Ministers and access him directly as and when required (Hindustan Times-5/11/14). Also, insidious stratagems used to prevent elevation of independent minded persons (Gopal Subramaniam) to Supreme Court, tarring of inconvenient NGOs (P. Pillai of Greenpeace and Christine Mehta of Amnesty International) through leaks and planting of stories and rendering RTI, CVC dysfunctional by keeping the posts vacant for a prolonged period do not fit in with the transparency standards Mr. Modi was so eloquent about during his campaign. Even the judiciary has been “advised” by PM to be wary of 5-Star Activists. In fact, there is a fear that an intricate web of political and professionals informers has become a permanent part of governance and is supposed to help PMO retain, tighten and enhance its control. Also media`s access to Bureaucrats/Ministers has been restricted drying up flow of information from primary sources. Mr. Modi himself has kept the media at bay. He has not forgiven media for doing its job in 2002.
The “neo-media” has not raised queries about the expenditure incurred on Mr. Modi`s high-tech, high-voltage campaign which included video raths, holograms, freebies like T-shirts, Cap and, Sarees. The professional agencies recorded Mr. Modi`s rallies through cameras mounted on drones and cranes and “neo-media” used the same live feeds without even acknowledging the source. It has not questioned the avalanche of advertisements promoting various “renewed” and other schemes, released by Modi Sarkar. The number and the frequency of advertisements is mind-boggling. The “neo-media’ has been berating Delhi`s AAP Govt. for earmarking 526 crores for promotional advertisements but has not, so far, raised any questions about NDA`s advertisements which focus almost entirely on Mr. Modi and his exhortations. Is it because Modi Sarkar`s generosity is a source of revenue for “neo-media” and it is used to “grease” the persuasion indulged in by the Govt. to prevent media from straying? Or is it for diverting attention from substantive issues like job creation and black money?
The “neo-media” also helped the Corporate and BJP in preparing the ground for Mr. Modi`s victory. Of course, the pusillanimity, lack of conviction, arrogance about 2nd term, coalitional pitfalls and perception of endemic corruption did contribute to UPA`s fall. But the Corporate, BJP led by Mr. Modi and a section of bureaucracy not only obstructed but vitiated the political discourse. The “new-media” now accuses the opposition of harming “national interest” by disrupting Rajya Sabha and blocking Mr. Modi`s economic reforms. It suppresses or ignores the fac that it was Mr. Modi himself who stymied FDIs, GST and even Land Border Agreement with Bangla Desh. Arun Jaitly has defined disruptions as legitimate Parliamentary tactics. If so, it is kosher for all. Also, the Corporate was upset with UPA because of its shift from patronage to politics of rights and entitlements and imposition of Corporate Social Responsibility. It turned its back on it despite having received huge benefits through “revenue foregone”. Instead of investing in India, it rushed abroad and created jobs there. India is the third largest investor in U.K. now. The Corporate has now been assured of better days and Modi Sarker has already cut corporate tax by 1% and has drastically reduced allocations for social sector.
The CAG, Vinod Rai, the bureaucrat with a “mission” sensationalised its draft reports by leaking them to media. He discovered huge “presumptive” losses because of corruption in implementing the “existing” policies about allocation of spectrum/coal. The alleged scams are sub judice now. But Rai`s address to young Police Officers of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel National Police Academy, Hyderabad on 11/10/13, reveals, that he felt “called” upon to set the systems right by himself. He spoke like an activist and said “I wish to make three propositions today and seek your reactions on whether you agree and whether you are in a position to be a participant in ensuring that All India Services retain their past glory. First: that governance is at its lowest ebb; that morale of Civil Service is low; that credibility of Govt., is at its lowest; that decision making has become a casualty; Second: that this situation is deleterious to the nation; that too much is at stake for many in such a situation. Third: that on you and on officers of All India Services among others rests the ONUS to remedy the situation.” (From Frontline – 17.10.14 – A.G.Noorani`s article). Now Arun Jaitly tells us “CAG SHOULD NOT SENSATIONALIZE FINDINGS, WE LIVEIN A SOCIETY THAT HAS BECOME OVER-SUSPICIOUS. THEREFORE OUR JOB IS NOT TO CONVERT THE PUBLIC OPINION INTO A KIND OF LYNCH MOB”. (Times of India – 30/10/14).
The “neo-media” has displayed a tendency to either downplay or brush aside important issue/news which is likely to have an adverse impact and cause harm to strenuously built personality cult around Mr. Modi. Following are a few instances:-
Nitish Kumar, once a development hero has become a zero now for the media because he changed his stand and parted ways with NDA.. The “neo-media”, displaying exemplary journalistic zeal, ferreted out a CD circa 2003 wherein he had praised Gujarat Govt. But such probing is missing in the case of Mr. Modi who from 2002 to 2012 followed the divisive politics; in 2002, it was the sequence of “action-reaction” and crude and toxic jibes like “HUM PAANCH – HAMARE PACHEES”. In 2007, passions were roused by Mr. Modi by asking “what should I do with Sohrabuddins?” at the election rallies and in 2012 Gujarat, Govt. resisted funding repairs, restoration of Muslim religious places destroyed or damaged in 2002 Gujarat riots and Supreme Court had to intervene. There has been no follow-up however.
The verdict in Akshardham Terror case delivered by Supreme Court on 16/5/14 acquitted six persons, three of them on death row and other three facing life-term has been ignored. The SC even made scathing observations about Gujarat Police “instead of booking the real culprits responsible for taking so many precious lives, police imposed grievous charges against them”. The SC also pulled up the then Home Minister, Mr. Modi, for “non-application of mind”.
Prof. of History, Salil Misra, says “Culture, art and cinema are the instruments to homogenise the society”. RSS also subscribes to this dictum. Modi Sarkar has allowed its followers or associates to infiltrate (Y. Sudarshan Rao – ICHR / G. Chauhan – FTII) into or carry out purge (Amartya Sen – Nalanda University / G. Ravindran – ICHR) in established, autonomous Institutions dealing with education, art and science. Now, NCERT has been asked to review and rewrite History books for schools in a way that will emphasise the role of “cultural nationalism” in Freedom Struggle. The avowed aim is to inculcate a feeling for nationalism. However, for RSS, nationalism is a curious combination of xenophobia and humongous conceit of being superior and of triumphalism.
The CBI had charge-sheeted many Police Officers for fake encounters in Gujarat and had resisted their bail. Now, with the change of Govt. at the Centre, the same CBI has refused to contest the grant of bail to these officers. The Gujarat Govt. has not only lifted their suspension but has promoted some of them. Again, NIA`s Prosecutors in Malegaon and Ajmer cases where Hindu groups stand arraigned have protested that pressure is being brought on them to go slow. Also, the witnesses too have begun to turn hostile. One of them has been made a Minister in BJP Govt. of Jharkhand. In Gujarat,
Like Emergency of 1975, the 16th Lok Sabha Elections is a watershed moment for media. Earlier, it chose to crawl. Now, it has turned into a watch-dog for the Executive. The personality oriented governance has been hailed. In 1975, it was Lathi, now it is self-interest, lucre, net-working and not so concealed persuasive and coercive pressure. India`s intelligentsia had rationalized the tyranny of Emergency and once again, it is rationalizing Modi cult through over-emphasising “growth” and Hashimpura, Atali, Laxmanpur Bathe, Bhagana, Khairlanji and the mal-nourished millions hardly feature in this discourse.
What is happening is not conventional pull and push of power of politics but is a Machiavellian undermining of democratic process itself. It is time to recall Dr. Ambedkar`s words about the democracy. He said on January 26, 1950, the day India became Republic, “we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics, we will have equality and in social and economic life, we will have inequality. In politics, we will be recognising the principle of one-man-one-vote and one-vote-one- value. In our social and economic life, we shall, by reason of our social and economic structure, deny the principle of one-vote-one-value. How long shall we continue to live the life of contradictions? How long shall we continue to deny equality in our social and economic life? If we continue to deny it for long, we shall be putting our political democracy in peril”?
One should also remember that Nuremburg War Crime Trial in 1946 confirmed the existence of a nexus built by the political power with the Corporate and the Media. Then also, the political power was accessed through democratic process.
P.S. There has been turmoil in the media of late caused perhaps by the latest developments like Lalitgate. Modi Sarkar, for a change, is being asked questions. The “new-media” has been displaying its “tabloidish” expertise in dealing with its unsavoury aspects. Is the Corporate apprehensive about the new developments which have the potential of delaying the economic reforms? Has the media now realized that its creation, invention, promotion and selling of Mr. Modi remains a hollow narrative, like holograms?
(Pramod Kumar is a commentator based in Goa.)