FOCUS
FREE SPEECH &
MEDIA DISHONESTY
Many years ago, during the 2nd year of UPA government’s first term in New Delhi’s seat of power, before noon, two men walked into my office, in a Mangalore suburb, and asked “Sir you should read ‘The Hindu’”. I retorted “Sorry! I stopped reading ‘The Hindu’. “Why Sir?” was the instant response. “Because you are subjective”, was my take. “No, no, things have changed at the helm at ‘The Hindu’, so you’ll have no reason to complain” was the riposte. “Alright, there was this government, the NDA outfit at the centre, a year or so ago. Every government does both positive and negative contribution to the growth trajectory. But you did not have anything positive to say on NDA performance”. One of the two men, was rather in a great hurry to answer my query. “We are anti BJP” was his intervention. Mind you, I didn’t ever take the name of BJP! I just smiled “Didn’t I tell you that your paper is subjective and you have just proved & confirmed it? Hence your credibility is suspect. As a journalist you should be anti nobody, you should worry about untruth masquerading as the truth”. They left without convincing me to start buying ‘The Hindu’.
It is another matter, for the sheer quantum of good reading material, at times, – both biased and fair – I have lately switched back to ‘The Hindu’. India is a happening place of all kinds, including weird, bizarre and downright stupid. Thus, when the editorial of ‘The Hindu’ on 27th Oct., accused that “Bharatiya Janata Party has outrageously demanded” slapping a case of sedition against, the one book sensation, Arundhati Roy “for speaking her mind”, the Chennai based newspaper was only confirming their dislike of BJP. Just to inform ‘The Hindu’, that, while speaking to Shoma Chaudhary of ‘Tehelka’, Arundhati Roy had reportedly stated, “Sedition is an archaic, obsolete idea revived for us by the ‘Times Now’, a channel that seems to have hysterically dedicated itself to hunting me down”, and accusation of BJP came much later. It was easier for ‘The Hindu’ to blame BJP, its beite noire, for the ‘outrageous demand’ to slap a case of sedition on Roy rather than take on, another more powerful media giant, the ‘Times Now’. By writing against BJP, ‘The Hindu’, appears to be serving its USP. There apparently has no other reason to really dislike BJP. All political parties in India, has its own brand of dirty politics, and therefore as a member of the media, whether print or electronic, has to remain clear of this murky political waters. Here it is interesting to note what Roy had said to ‘Tehelka’. Quote, “BJP desperately needed to divert attention from the charge sheeting of Indresh Kumar, a key RSS leader, in the Ajmer blast”. This is plain bull shit. BJP is in politics before Arundhati Roy was born. They can create any issue to raise enough hackles – rightly or wrongly - , both inside and outside the parliament. They do not need likes of Arundhati Roy to provide fodder to their missiles. For that matter all political parties are capable of managing their image problem without any external help.
Now coming to the so called ‘Free Speech’ by this Arundhati Roy and her ilk, ‘The Hindu’ had this front page title, the day after Roy’s ‘seditious’ speech. “Centre not for filing charges against Arundhati Roy, Geelani” in dark bold letters, with an addition to the main head line “Acting on BJP’s demand will undermine the fragile dialogue process”, in smaller letters. One was to highlight the duo, and the other was apparently to show BJP in poor light.Most media men and women work towards an agenda, unfortunately. Take the case of Dileep Padgaonkar, one of the interlocutors sent by the centre to Kashmir. During his days at the helm of Times of India, he would always publish all negative reports on Ramakrishna Hegde, a former Karnataka Chief Minister, on the front pages, and all positive reports on him had appeared on middle pages or beyond, sometime even without title. And mind you, Hegde was media friendly. Thus, if what Hegde was to Dilip Padgaonkar, BJP is for ‘The Hindu’. Both are not unbiased.
As compared to ‘The Hindu’ which went hyper on Roy & Geelani – for some unclear agenda – a Mumbai based paper Free Press Journal had the report “Govt. not to file case against Geelani, Roy” 2 days later, in the middle of the 3rd page, as a small news item, with another much bigger accompanying report titled “Ram slams Arundhati for Kashmir remarks”. It was the same Ram Jethmalani who had earlier ticked off his own party BJP for their comments on central interlocutors as “Childish and Churlish”. Jethmalani, while noting that Roy is entitled to her views on Kashmir, had reportedly observed “I do not approve of what Arundhati Roy has been saying on Kashmir these days. I do not see any merit in her observations”.
As Mark Twain had said, ‘often a hen which only laid an egg cackles as if she has laid an asteroid.’ If we confuse the egg for an asteroid because of the cackling, it does not speak highly of our judgement and discerning ability, was his take. Indeed when dramatic pronouncements are given far too much visibility, it does impair rational discourse.
The way this issue involving Kashmir is being handled by ‘The Hindu’, it appears that it is doing this to pander to a section of readers. Who is this Roy or Gilani to hog the media limelight, who utter statements inconsistent with the interest of a nation? What are their credentials? It is a strange argument that “In this country, a writer is jailed for speaking her mind”. A writer has to be more responsible than a man on the street or a member of the public, since it has the potential to influence thought and action of people in general. This Roy has been getting herself into controversies, more than anything else, to promote herself with all kinds of statements to remain in the limelight. There are innumerable reader responses in other dailies ridiculing and demanding all kinds of action on Roy. She took part in the Narmada movement also for a while, but left it because Medha Patkar was already doing her best for the displaced people. And Medha is certainly a more dedicated and committed individual than this Roy who paled into insignificance before Patkar. Thus she was looking for more complex issues, where she can attack the Indian state to score selective media points. Her stand on naxalites issue too is something which can never contribute positively to the long term solution to naxalism, instead it can only help it remain boiling. When she failed to impress the state much, with her diatribe against the state on Naxalism, she looked around for more ‘explosive’ issues where she can poke her nose. And what better issue she can join hands with, than joining the separatist joker Syed Geelani? Yes she was fully aware of the explosive nature of her utterance and thus was an instant hit in a section of the media, who were around looking for sensation. Home ministry officials have rightly decided to ignore both Geelani and Roy, lest it be exploited by separatists. Of course it also helped to douse the BJP spirit. Here it is important to reproduce an IANS, Jammu date lined news, “Jammu Celebrates State’s accession with India”. May be ‘The Hindu’ did not have a reporter at Jammu to report this. And the UPA govt. is at an old trick. When you can’t openly take action against somebody, you set the I.T. sleuths on the opponent. Suddenly the department woke up to an I.T. arrears of Rs. 1.73 crores due over a period from none other than Syed Ali Shah Geelani. This was reported by a national daily from Mumbai.
As a nation we have always fought and agitated for our rights, right across the board. Nobody, I mean nobody, really thought that duties and responsibilities come before the rights. Firstly, how much are we fit to ask for rights? Rights are of various kinds. There are natural rights bestowed by the nature, there are rights coming from long standing social practices, there are constitutional rights and there are legislative rights. All these rights presuppose a limit to its scope of application and enforcement. These rights are never unfettered. The scope of its operation entails and prescribes certain restrictions. But most human beings and the organised groups of human beings generally loath to be told of their limits and journalists and writers are no exceptions.
There is one Kasim Sait from Chennai writes in his letter to the editor, The Hindu, “The editorial (Oct. 27) is a classic defence of free speech, which only a steadfast defender of freedom of speech like ‘The Hindu’ can make”. ‘The Hindu’ is a defender of freedom of speech only when it suites it, and there are any number of instances to prove this point. Yes it suited Mr Sait as well, to agree with ‘The Hindu’. Yes, they defend only of selective speakers of their freedom. They defend only selective protestors for their ‘legitimate’ demands. They are not evenhanded and therefore it is important to make them accountable for their acts of commission and omission. This Mr Sait writes further “Why can’t a writer, a painter, an educationist or a creative artist express his or her views freely in a liberal democratic country like ours?” It is a very good question. While, it is important to note, at the outset, that rights and responsibilities go together, it will be interesting to know, what was the reaction of The Hindu when a fatwa was issued to kill Salman Rushdi for writing ‘Satanic Verses’, so also that of Mr Sait, after all, Rushdi was only expressing his thoughts.
Mr. Sait further writes “Should not our civil society draw upon the lead provided by such bold media initiatives as that of ‘The Hindu’ and struggle to build a movement to usher in a really sincere liberal society, rather than one dictated by the whims of extremist elements in society?”
This question has many dimensions. He talks about the society ‘dictated by the whims of extremist elements in society.’ But excuse me ‘which extremist elements you are talking about Mr Sait?’. While it is not difficult to guess whom he is pointing out, what needs to be emphatically told is that the Indian security forces are to-day in Kashmir for precisely similar reason. It is the extremist elements infiltrated from POK and those locals blessed by the likes of Geelani are the prime cause of Indian army being there in Kashmir.
It is indeed true that the solution to the issue of Kashmir could have been arrived at, like all other princely states, during the life time of Sheikh Abdullah itself, the political leadership of that time bungled it, despite there being more than one opportunity to sort the issue for ever. And article 370, by making it without a fixed time frame, has only added to the hugeness of the problem. We all know how the issue of reservation –provided only for 10 years in the constitution – has been going on merrily for all the 6 decades of free India. Has it solved the problem of empowerment? Did it make its beneficiaries, independent or dependent?
Thus article 370 too made Kashmir a bit exclusive, and has only added to the problem. How do you think this exclusiveness has contributed to liberal society? as suggested by this Mr. Sait. And it was the same ‘The Hindu’, which devoted the entire space meant for letters to the editor on 30/10/2010 to an outdated and irrelevant issue like a Deoband Fatwa on invalidating marriages by its faithfuls, where Mr Sait too contributed his inputs. Can we ask both ‘The Hindu’ and Mr Sait (who is a regular writer of ‘letters to editor’) how this Fatwa business and liberal civil society can go to-gether and be on the same foundation?
In fact it was quite amusing to read a letter (see box) which occupied the ‘VOX POPULI’ space of India’s National Newspaper since 1878, ‘The Hindu’. And now we have this ‘triple talaq on cell phone’, ‘doesn’t matter even if the wife has not heard it due to network signal problem.’ What do you call this, a media aberration? Like the news of Kannada film star Jayamala, reportedly entering the ‘Sanctora Sanctorum of Ayyappa Shrine in Shabarimalai’, hogging absolutely undeserved media attention and coverage. Isn’t media barking up the wrong tree?!
Pandering to the whims of a section, at the cost of informing and educating the public at large, is both undemocratic in principle and an immoral practice. Harmony can be preserved and sustained in an iniquitous society only when the privileged exercise restraint and act with deep sense of responsibility.
Of course, strangely and inexplicably, there has been, a kind of, silence over this Roy episode after the initial burst, by a section of the media. May be the home ministry decision to ignore her and her utterance have had the desired effect.
However, reverting to Tehelka coverage of Arundhati Roy episode and the question answer session it had with her, it is pertinent to note that there have been some ‘gems’ of observations by both interlocutors. According to Tehelka, “Roy has fundamental disagreement with the nature of Indian state”. “A writer has more right than others to express her/his dissent”. Tehelka even compared Roy to Liu Xiaobo, Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk and Iranian activist Shirin Ebadi – all Nobel Laureates. And hold your breath, even to the Father of the Nation – Mahatma Gandhi!
There is enough media strength in this country, provided they are honest and even-handed, to correct the ills of the state. Roy is not filling any vacuum. Writer is just another citizen of the country and hence has same and equal right like all of us. Roy need not be specially treated. So what, she has won the Bookers! What needs to be commended, has to be commended. But just as an addendum, I must confess, the book ‘God of Small Things’ did not hold my interest for too long. I left reading it mid-way. Comparing Roy to Shirin Ebadi and other Nobel Laureates is rather farfetched. And to Mahatma Gandhi, is pure figment of imagination. If the historian Ramachandra Guha has reportedly called ‘Roy a Joke’, I shouldn’t disagree with him, although he has reportedly denied having said so.
Here it is relevant to quote a twitter making its rounds. “It takes a particular type of moral depravity to compare Arundhati Roy to Mohandas Gandhi” – Acorn, twitted with reference to an editorial, appearing in ‘The Guardian’ of London. Are you listening Shoma!
As for Ms. Roy, it is difficult to truly take a lenient view of her utterances. During the course of her question answer session with Tehelka, this question was asked: Quote “Geelani in particular is not just pro-azadi or anti-India. He is very vocally pro-Pakistan, pro-Sharia, pro-Jamaat and has had an ambiguous past with the Hizb and violent internecine battles within the Kashmiri leadership itself. While you were perfectly right to voice your perspective on Kashmir, why did you choose to do it in conjunction with him? Why would you not be as critical of him as you are of the Indian state?”
Roy had this answer (reproduced only in part). Quote “There are many Kashmiris who seriously disagree with Geelani’s views and still respect him for not having sold out to the Indian state.” Now this is an extremely arrogant answer. This man called Geelani who is enjoying every thing provided by the Indian state, is alright being rabidly Pakistani in his talk and also probably bought over by Pakistani to be their agent, and this stupid Roy has the gumption to tell that Kashmiris “still respect him for not having sold out to Indian state”. This is atrocious. By the same token she is saying, those who agree with India or Indian stand are sold out to India?! She even went on to compare this man Geelani with Nelson Mandela. This woman has completely lost her sense of proportion and so is a section of the media for making a mountain of her, if not a heroine, when she is not even a molehill.
The interview was full of extremely controversial statements bordering on anti India tirade. It is extremely sad that people like Geelani and Roy should have been given the kind of prominence that a section of the media has given.
With the kind of controversies that this Roy is courting, could it be that she is hoping to internationalise herself with the objective of being considered for some awards like Nobel? Does this dimension make the reader think?
Coming back to the media, it does not need to be overstressed that, it is incumbent on the media to strive for objectivity, fairness and balance, to avoid sensationalism or to inflame passions, especially during the period of stress and tension. The media owe it to the nation and themselves to promote a sense of fairness and optimism. Or as the adage goes, IF YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
MEDIA DISHONESTY
Many years ago, during the 2nd year of UPA government’s first term in New Delhi’s seat of power, before noon, two men walked into my office, in a Mangalore suburb, and asked “Sir you should read ‘The Hindu’”. I retorted “Sorry! I stopped reading ‘The Hindu’. “Why Sir?” was the instant response. “Because you are subjective”, was my take. “No, no, things have changed at the helm at ‘The Hindu’, so you’ll have no reason to complain” was the riposte. “Alright, there was this government, the NDA outfit at the centre, a year or so ago. Every government does both positive and negative contribution to the growth trajectory. But you did not have anything positive to say on NDA performance”. One of the two men, was rather in a great hurry to answer my query. “We are anti BJP” was his intervention. Mind you, I didn’t ever take the name of BJP! I just smiled “Didn’t I tell you that your paper is subjective and you have just proved & confirmed it? Hence your credibility is suspect. As a journalist you should be anti nobody, you should worry about untruth masquerading as the truth”. They left without convincing me to start buying ‘The Hindu’.
It is another matter, for the sheer quantum of good reading material, at times, – both biased and fair – I have lately switched back to ‘The Hindu’. India is a happening place of all kinds, including weird, bizarre and downright stupid. Thus, when the editorial of ‘The Hindu’ on 27th Oct., accused that “Bharatiya Janata Party has outrageously demanded” slapping a case of sedition against, the one book sensation, Arundhati Roy “for speaking her mind”, the Chennai based newspaper was only confirming their dislike of BJP. Just to inform ‘The Hindu’, that, while speaking to Shoma Chaudhary of ‘Tehelka’, Arundhati Roy had reportedly stated, “Sedition is an archaic, obsolete idea revived for us by the ‘Times Now’, a channel that seems to have hysterically dedicated itself to hunting me down”, and accusation of BJP came much later. It was easier for ‘The Hindu’ to blame BJP, its beite noire, for the ‘outrageous demand’ to slap a case of sedition on Roy rather than take on, another more powerful media giant, the ‘Times Now’. By writing against BJP, ‘The Hindu’, appears to be serving its USP. There apparently has no other reason to really dislike BJP. All political parties in India, has its own brand of dirty politics, and therefore as a member of the media, whether print or electronic, has to remain clear of this murky political waters. Here it is interesting to note what Roy had said to ‘Tehelka’. Quote, “BJP desperately needed to divert attention from the charge sheeting of Indresh Kumar, a key RSS leader, in the Ajmer blast”. This is plain bull shit. BJP is in politics before Arundhati Roy was born. They can create any issue to raise enough hackles – rightly or wrongly - , both inside and outside the parliament. They do not need likes of Arundhati Roy to provide fodder to their missiles. For that matter all political parties are capable of managing their image problem without any external help.
Now coming to the so called ‘Free Speech’ by this Arundhati Roy and her ilk, ‘The Hindu’ had this front page title, the day after Roy’s ‘seditious’ speech. “Centre not for filing charges against Arundhati Roy, Geelani” in dark bold letters, with an addition to the main head line “Acting on BJP’s demand will undermine the fragile dialogue process”, in smaller letters. One was to highlight the duo, and the other was apparently to show BJP in poor light.Most media men and women work towards an agenda, unfortunately. Take the case of Dileep Padgaonkar, one of the interlocutors sent by the centre to Kashmir. During his days at the helm of Times of India, he would always publish all negative reports on Ramakrishna Hegde, a former Karnataka Chief Minister, on the front pages, and all positive reports on him had appeared on middle pages or beyond, sometime even without title. And mind you, Hegde was media friendly. Thus, if what Hegde was to Dilip Padgaonkar, BJP is for ‘The Hindu’. Both are not unbiased.
As compared to ‘The Hindu’ which went hyper on Roy & Geelani – for some unclear agenda – a Mumbai based paper Free Press Journal had the report “Govt. not to file case against Geelani, Roy” 2 days later, in the middle of the 3rd page, as a small news item, with another much bigger accompanying report titled “Ram slams Arundhati for Kashmir remarks”. It was the same Ram Jethmalani who had earlier ticked off his own party BJP for their comments on central interlocutors as “Childish and Churlish”. Jethmalani, while noting that Roy is entitled to her views on Kashmir, had reportedly observed “I do not approve of what Arundhati Roy has been saying on Kashmir these days. I do not see any merit in her observations”.
As Mark Twain had said, ‘often a hen which only laid an egg cackles as if she has laid an asteroid.’ If we confuse the egg for an asteroid because of the cackling, it does not speak highly of our judgement and discerning ability, was his take. Indeed when dramatic pronouncements are given far too much visibility, it does impair rational discourse.
The way this issue involving Kashmir is being handled by ‘The Hindu’, it appears that it is doing this to pander to a section of readers. Who is this Roy or Gilani to hog the media limelight, who utter statements inconsistent with the interest of a nation? What are their credentials? It is a strange argument that “In this country, a writer is jailed for speaking her mind”. A writer has to be more responsible than a man on the street or a member of the public, since it has the potential to influence thought and action of people in general. This Roy has been getting herself into controversies, more than anything else, to promote herself with all kinds of statements to remain in the limelight. There are innumerable reader responses in other dailies ridiculing and demanding all kinds of action on Roy. She took part in the Narmada movement also for a while, but left it because Medha Patkar was already doing her best for the displaced people. And Medha is certainly a more dedicated and committed individual than this Roy who paled into insignificance before Patkar. Thus she was looking for more complex issues, where she can attack the Indian state to score selective media points. Her stand on naxalites issue too is something which can never contribute positively to the long term solution to naxalism, instead it can only help it remain boiling. When she failed to impress the state much, with her diatribe against the state on Naxalism, she looked around for more ‘explosive’ issues where she can poke her nose. And what better issue she can join hands with, than joining the separatist joker Syed Geelani? Yes she was fully aware of the explosive nature of her utterance and thus was an instant hit in a section of the media, who were around looking for sensation. Home ministry officials have rightly decided to ignore both Geelani and Roy, lest it be exploited by separatists. Of course it also helped to douse the BJP spirit. Here it is important to reproduce an IANS, Jammu date lined news, “Jammu Celebrates State’s accession with India”. May be ‘The Hindu’ did not have a reporter at Jammu to report this. And the UPA govt. is at an old trick. When you can’t openly take action against somebody, you set the I.T. sleuths on the opponent. Suddenly the department woke up to an I.T. arrears of Rs. 1.73 crores due over a period from none other than Syed Ali Shah Geelani. This was reported by a national daily from Mumbai.
As a nation we have always fought and agitated for our rights, right across the board. Nobody, I mean nobody, really thought that duties and responsibilities come before the rights. Firstly, how much are we fit to ask for rights? Rights are of various kinds. There are natural rights bestowed by the nature, there are rights coming from long standing social practices, there are constitutional rights and there are legislative rights. All these rights presuppose a limit to its scope of application and enforcement. These rights are never unfettered. The scope of its operation entails and prescribes certain restrictions. But most human beings and the organised groups of human beings generally loath to be told of their limits and journalists and writers are no exceptions.
There is one Kasim Sait from Chennai writes in his letter to the editor, The Hindu, “The editorial (Oct. 27) is a classic defence of free speech, which only a steadfast defender of freedom of speech like ‘The Hindu’ can make”. ‘The Hindu’ is a defender of freedom of speech only when it suites it, and there are any number of instances to prove this point. Yes it suited Mr Sait as well, to agree with ‘The Hindu’. Yes, they defend only of selective speakers of their freedom. They defend only selective protestors for their ‘legitimate’ demands. They are not evenhanded and therefore it is important to make them accountable for their acts of commission and omission. This Mr Sait writes further “Why can’t a writer, a painter, an educationist or a creative artist express his or her views freely in a liberal democratic country like ours?” It is a very good question. While, it is important to note, at the outset, that rights and responsibilities go together, it will be interesting to know, what was the reaction of The Hindu when a fatwa was issued to kill Salman Rushdi for writing ‘Satanic Verses’, so also that of Mr Sait, after all, Rushdi was only expressing his thoughts.
Mr. Sait further writes “Should not our civil society draw upon the lead provided by such bold media initiatives as that of ‘The Hindu’ and struggle to build a movement to usher in a really sincere liberal society, rather than one dictated by the whims of extremist elements in society?”
This question has many dimensions. He talks about the society ‘dictated by the whims of extremist elements in society.’ But excuse me ‘which extremist elements you are talking about Mr Sait?’. While it is not difficult to guess whom he is pointing out, what needs to be emphatically told is that the Indian security forces are to-day in Kashmir for precisely similar reason. It is the extremist elements infiltrated from POK and those locals blessed by the likes of Geelani are the prime cause of Indian army being there in Kashmir.
It is indeed true that the solution to the issue of Kashmir could have been arrived at, like all other princely states, during the life time of Sheikh Abdullah itself, the political leadership of that time bungled it, despite there being more than one opportunity to sort the issue for ever. And article 370, by making it without a fixed time frame, has only added to the hugeness of the problem. We all know how the issue of reservation –provided only for 10 years in the constitution – has been going on merrily for all the 6 decades of free India. Has it solved the problem of empowerment? Did it make its beneficiaries, independent or dependent?
Thus article 370 too made Kashmir a bit exclusive, and has only added to the problem. How do you think this exclusiveness has contributed to liberal society? as suggested by this Mr. Sait. And it was the same ‘The Hindu’, which devoted the entire space meant for letters to the editor on 30/10/2010 to an outdated and irrelevant issue like a Deoband Fatwa on invalidating marriages by its faithfuls, where Mr Sait too contributed his inputs. Can we ask both ‘The Hindu’ and Mr Sait (who is a regular writer of ‘letters to editor’) how this Fatwa business and liberal civil society can go to-gether and be on the same foundation?
In fact it was quite amusing to read a letter (see box) which occupied the ‘VOX POPULI’ space of India’s National Newspaper since 1878, ‘The Hindu’. And now we have this ‘triple talaq on cell phone’, ‘doesn’t matter even if the wife has not heard it due to network signal problem.’ What do you call this, a media aberration? Like the news of Kannada film star Jayamala, reportedly entering the ‘Sanctora Sanctorum of Ayyappa Shrine in Shabarimalai’, hogging absolutely undeserved media attention and coverage. Isn’t media barking up the wrong tree?!
Pandering to the whims of a section, at the cost of informing and educating the public at large, is both undemocratic in principle and an immoral practice. Harmony can be preserved and sustained in an iniquitous society only when the privileged exercise restraint and act with deep sense of responsibility.
Of course, strangely and inexplicably, there has been, a kind of, silence over this Roy episode after the initial burst, by a section of the media. May be the home ministry decision to ignore her and her utterance have had the desired effect.
However, reverting to Tehelka coverage of Arundhati Roy episode and the question answer session it had with her, it is pertinent to note that there have been some ‘gems’ of observations by both interlocutors. According to Tehelka, “Roy has fundamental disagreement with the nature of Indian state”. “A writer has more right than others to express her/his dissent”. Tehelka even compared Roy to Liu Xiaobo, Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk and Iranian activist Shirin Ebadi – all Nobel Laureates. And hold your breath, even to the Father of the Nation – Mahatma Gandhi!
There is enough media strength in this country, provided they are honest and even-handed, to correct the ills of the state. Roy is not filling any vacuum. Writer is just another citizen of the country and hence has same and equal right like all of us. Roy need not be specially treated. So what, she has won the Bookers! What needs to be commended, has to be commended. But just as an addendum, I must confess, the book ‘God of Small Things’ did not hold my interest for too long. I left reading it mid-way. Comparing Roy to Shirin Ebadi and other Nobel Laureates is rather farfetched. And to Mahatma Gandhi, is pure figment of imagination. If the historian Ramachandra Guha has reportedly called ‘Roy a Joke’, I shouldn’t disagree with him, although he has reportedly denied having said so.
Here it is relevant to quote a twitter making its rounds. “It takes a particular type of moral depravity to compare Arundhati Roy to Mohandas Gandhi” – Acorn, twitted with reference to an editorial, appearing in ‘The Guardian’ of London. Are you listening Shoma!
As for Ms. Roy, it is difficult to truly take a lenient view of her utterances. During the course of her question answer session with Tehelka, this question was asked: Quote “Geelani in particular is not just pro-azadi or anti-India. He is very vocally pro-Pakistan, pro-Sharia, pro-Jamaat and has had an ambiguous past with the Hizb and violent internecine battles within the Kashmiri leadership itself. While you were perfectly right to voice your perspective on Kashmir, why did you choose to do it in conjunction with him? Why would you not be as critical of him as you are of the Indian state?”
Roy had this answer (reproduced only in part). Quote “There are many Kashmiris who seriously disagree with Geelani’s views and still respect him for not having sold out to the Indian state.” Now this is an extremely arrogant answer. This man called Geelani who is enjoying every thing provided by the Indian state, is alright being rabidly Pakistani in his talk and also probably bought over by Pakistani to be their agent, and this stupid Roy has the gumption to tell that Kashmiris “still respect him for not having sold out to Indian state”. This is atrocious. By the same token she is saying, those who agree with India or Indian stand are sold out to India?! She even went on to compare this man Geelani with Nelson Mandela. This woman has completely lost her sense of proportion and so is a section of the media for making a mountain of her, if not a heroine, when she is not even a molehill.
The interview was full of extremely controversial statements bordering on anti India tirade. It is extremely sad that people like Geelani and Roy should have been given the kind of prominence that a section of the media has given.
With the kind of controversies that this Roy is courting, could it be that she is hoping to internationalise herself with the objective of being considered for some awards like Nobel? Does this dimension make the reader think?
Coming back to the media, it does not need to be overstressed that, it is incumbent on the media to strive for objectivity, fairness and balance, to avoid sensationalism or to inflame passions, especially during the period of stress and tension. The media owe it to the nation and themselves to promote a sense of fairness and optimism. Or as the adage goes, IF YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE SOLUTION, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.
Comments