Recently, while reading a blog by popular Pakistani columnist Nadeem F Paracha in the Dawn newspaper, I came across an interesting comment by a certain Anjum Hameed. It raised the most interesting and pertinent points.
The comment was: “Out of curiosity, I want to know WHY we can’t take on our friendly, neighborhood mullah??...you think he will ex-communicate us??...he can’t...our religion allows us to pray and worship God in our own homes, in our own corner…”
There are several aspects that Hameed’s views have highlighted. Three of them are.
1. The relationship between the general populace and ecclesiasts.
2. The difference between spirituality and religion.
3. The primordial need to belong.
Let us analyze these three in detail.
1. The Mullah and I
Why is it that I cannot voice opinion against the neighborhood Mullah? And, if I were a Christian, against the padre of my congregation?
It is not the fear that I will annoy my one-point contact with God. I am certainly saner than that. If I believe in a ubiquitous and omnipotent god, then I for sure realize that I don’t need a go between such as the Mullah or the Pandit.
The answer is that by some historical quirk of fate a handful of people assumed the right – or perhaps were inadvertently bestowed with the right – to ‘guide’/‘direct’ the flock in matters religious and spiritual. Eventually these guys also assumed the right to ‘guide/direct’ the entire community as a unit.
And now I am scared of not belonging to that community/unit, which the Mullah/Padre/Pandit is quite capable of ensuring if I do not follow his diktats.
2. Religion or Spirituality?
That brings us to the next point.
So essentially organized religion – as represented by its modern day leaders — is nothing but a tool to herd people into a single unit for political purposes. It is not very different from a political party. The only difference being that religion uses the garb of spirituality after maligning/ twisting it big time.
3. Insecurity
But the bigger question is, why should I belong to a particular community at all in the first place?
The answer is simple: Insecurity.
Human being has always found security in numbers. For all our dramatic modern achievements, human beings are frail – physically and mentally; frail, because in spite of our achievements, we are not secure in our skin.
We view each other with suspicion. If the other is of a marginally different physical and mental make-up, we completely distrust him/her. The corollary to that is our tendency to join hands with those with the same physical and mental make-up as our own.
And religion (particularly organized religion) is the biggest expression of that insecurity of ours.
In short: to hell with Organized Religion — be it the anachronistic Hinduism, putrid Islam, redundant Christianity or decadent Buddhism.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Television Discussions: Looking For Civility and Reason
Panel discussions on Indian television have come a long way from the sleepy and monotonous sessions of the Doordarshan era.
Back then the static camera and uninspired presentation of views actually killed the informed decency of the panelists.
With the media boom, the picture changed. Apart from the lively involvement of audience and the eloquence of media-savvy panelists, technology also ensured the involvement of speakers from across time zones, promising a deeper, broader and more enlightened discourse on issues.
Not only are today's newsmakers and commentators seemingly more open to instant reactions to their views, they are also well versed -- in varying degrees -- with the dynamics of live media.
However, what one very badly misses is good old civility in conversations. By ‘civility’, one does not mean mere non-use of un-parliamentary language. I mean ‘civility’ in the very basic sense; something like ‘Wait for your turn to speak’, which is taught to kindergarten children.
By nature we Indians are a garrulous lot, no doubt. The understated adjective, ‘argumentative’, which Prof Amartya Sen bestowed on us, is perhaps a quality that flows in our bloodstream. But should that stop us from having reasonable debates on TV without out-shouting each other?
I think there are two parts to the problem, besides that fact that we are inherently argumentative.
First, television news, as the cliché goes, is no more just news today. It is entertainment. It is competition. It is also often a direct response mechanism that gives panelists the first taste of public sentiments.
Given this scenario, most Indian panelists – very often regular fixtures on particular channels – look to make the most out of their 30-60 minute daily airtime quota to ensure that they are heard. For such a desperate lot, it is irrelevant whether a fellow-panelist is making a pertinent point, answering specific questions or stating facts that could give the discussion a fresh perspective.
Irrespective of the political inclination of the panelist or news channel, discussions today are generally all sound and fury.
That brings us to the second aspect of the problem. One of the primary reasons for the cacophony on television is plain bad handling by producers as well as anchors.
Why can’t it be made clear before the start of the programme that volubility will not be considered a plus point? Why can’t anchors be better trained to moderate discussions? And finally, why can’t we have better learned panelists for specific topics?
For instance, on a discussion in the aftermath of 26/11 on Times Now, we had Shobha De offering views on the tactical and strategic mistakes on the NSG and actually pitted against the NSG chief himself!
Times Now often has a certain non-entity called Rahul Easwar (at best a college level debater) to defend the hooligans of Sriram Sene and Shiv Sena. This gentleman doesn’t even get his facts right and survives debates on shrill assertions.
Twice – once on Times Now and then on NDTV – Eeaswar was censured by a fellow panelist and the anchor for making provocative statements. One such statement was actually in favour of Sati.
The other extreme of his ideology is the soft-spoken Swapan Dasgupta whose voice is often lost in the barrage of his “louder than thou” co-panelists.
Recently, on NDTV’s Left, Right and Centre, which was discussing the fuel price hike, it was Rajiv Pratap Rudy and one of CPIM’s young faces who simply outshouted folks like Business Standard editor Sanjay Baru. Rudy was audacious enough to assert that the common man doesn’t bother about economics! Rudy was promptly corrected by a lady in the audience.
But the most annoying is perhaps the anchors’ self-righteous diatribe. In the zeal to make their own view-point the most dominant one (to hell with balance or objectivity!), they often pepper other speakers’ views with irritating ‘buts’, ‘ifs’ and, if necessary, ‘you suck!’ (No, I did not make up the last example. It was used by a ‘senior’ anchor on Times Now against Arundhati Roy).
At the end of such a session, and particularly from Rudy’s statement, it was clear that the idea was never to reach out to the layman. It was just to make sure that one’s sound box was the most sought after by the pandering visual media.
Back then the static camera and uninspired presentation of views actually killed the informed decency of the panelists.
With the media boom, the picture changed. Apart from the lively involvement of audience and the eloquence of media-savvy panelists, technology also ensured the involvement of speakers from across time zones, promising a deeper, broader and more enlightened discourse on issues.
Not only are today's newsmakers and commentators seemingly more open to instant reactions to their views, they are also well versed -- in varying degrees -- with the dynamics of live media.
However, what one very badly misses is good old civility in conversations. By ‘civility’, one does not mean mere non-use of un-parliamentary language. I mean ‘civility’ in the very basic sense; something like ‘Wait for your turn to speak’, which is taught to kindergarten children.
By nature we Indians are a garrulous lot, no doubt. The understated adjective, ‘argumentative’, which Prof Amartya Sen bestowed on us, is perhaps a quality that flows in our bloodstream. But should that stop us from having reasonable debates on TV without out-shouting each other?
I think there are two parts to the problem, besides that fact that we are inherently argumentative.
First, television news, as the cliché goes, is no more just news today. It is entertainment. It is competition. It is also often a direct response mechanism that gives panelists the first taste of public sentiments.
Given this scenario, most Indian panelists – very often regular fixtures on particular channels – look to make the most out of their 30-60 minute daily airtime quota to ensure that they are heard. For such a desperate lot, it is irrelevant whether a fellow-panelist is making a pertinent point, answering specific questions or stating facts that could give the discussion a fresh perspective.
Irrespective of the political inclination of the panelist or news channel, discussions today are generally all sound and fury.
That brings us to the second aspect of the problem. One of the primary reasons for the cacophony on television is plain bad handling by producers as well as anchors.
Why can’t it be made clear before the start of the programme that volubility will not be considered a plus point? Why can’t anchors be better trained to moderate discussions? And finally, why can’t we have better learned panelists for specific topics?
For instance, on a discussion in the aftermath of 26/11 on Times Now, we had Shobha De offering views on the tactical and strategic mistakes on the NSG and actually pitted against the NSG chief himself!
Times Now often has a certain non-entity called Rahul Easwar (at best a college level debater) to defend the hooligans of Sriram Sene and Shiv Sena. This gentleman doesn’t even get his facts right and survives debates on shrill assertions.
Twice – once on Times Now and then on NDTV – Eeaswar was censured by a fellow panelist and the anchor for making provocative statements. One such statement was actually in favour of Sati.
The other extreme of his ideology is the soft-spoken Swapan Dasgupta whose voice is often lost in the barrage of his “louder than thou” co-panelists.
Recently, on NDTV’s Left, Right and Centre, which was discussing the fuel price hike, it was Rajiv Pratap Rudy and one of CPIM’s young faces who simply outshouted folks like Business Standard editor Sanjay Baru. Rudy was audacious enough to assert that the common man doesn’t bother about economics! Rudy was promptly corrected by a lady in the audience.
But the most annoying is perhaps the anchors’ self-righteous diatribe. In the zeal to make their own view-point the most dominant one (to hell with balance or objectivity!), they often pepper other speakers’ views with irritating ‘buts’, ‘ifs’ and, if necessary, ‘you suck!’ (No, I did not make up the last example. It was used by a ‘senior’ anchor on Times Now against Arundhati Roy).
At the end of such a session, and particularly from Rudy’s statement, it was clear that the idea was never to reach out to the layman. It was just to make sure that one’s sound box was the most sought after by the pandering visual media.