The new OTT rules usher in a new era of perverse controls

 

                           The new OTT rules usher in a

                        new era of perverse controls

                                

                                              Jawhar Sircar

                              New Indian Express, 4^th March, 2021

 

                  With 53 percent of India’s 100 crore people older than 14 years using WhatsApp, a totally encrypted messaging platform, it was only a matter of time before government stepped in to try to find out what on earth is going on. The numbers are staggering: 45 crores watch YouTube while 41 crores are on Facebook. Even so, few were prepared for the avalanche of instructions that tumbled out on the 25^th of February. The Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics) Rules, 2021, left nothing to imagination but quite a bit to later disputes. As Mukul Rohatgi, the former Attorney General, mentioned, rather tactfully, these regulations appear to be “hasty”.

 

           The new regulations announce the government’s intention to govern an enormous area of mass communication in the digital world, perhaps more than the rules applicable to the print media, television and films. What distinguishes digital communication is its reliance on OTT or ‘over the top’ technologies that work through ‘cloud storage’ rather than cables or radio waves (that even television uses). OTT comes in three forms, the first is ‘social media’ platforms or ‘intermediaries’ like WhatsApp, Twitter and Instagram that only facilitate traffic of messages and visuals between users. The second consists of ‘online curated content’ like direct digital transmission of, say, web serials and movies that is offered by Netflix, Amazon Prime, Voot, Hotstar, etc. This genre became immensely popular during the pandemic when cinema halls were shut. The third sub-sector relates to ‘digital online news’ that has beaten the print media in terms of viewership. Though not yet profitable, it has compelled mainstream media to produce digital versions as well, and they face new controls.  The targets are, however, originally-digital news services like Firstpost, Sroll, The Quint and The Wire that are quite vocal against the regime. They could not be cowed down or won over, like much of mainstream media. 

 

             The new rules seek, quite unapologetically, to superintendent and control each of these three domains, but this is easier said than done. The field is just too vast and technologies change too rapidly. To begin with, social media platforms have been directed to check content and block items that are “defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, invasive of another’s privacy, including bodily privacy, insulting or harassing on the basis of gender, libellous, racially or ethnically objectionable” and so on. These are pious intentions, but such offences are quite punishable under the existing laws, as well. What is conspicuously absent in this blacklist is “statement against religious groups” and vicious hate-propagating trolls who terrorise all dissenters on Twitter and Facebook. The new powers under rule 3(1)(d) directing platforms to remove certain materials within 36 hours and under rule 4(2) to locate the “originators” of news may well be used only against dissenters. “Patently false and untrue news” are targeted, but everyone knows that these are systematically produced by powerful, politically-backed groups. One only hopes that the new regulations succeed in ridding the net of pornographic, paedophilic or non-consensual intimate visuals, as intended.

 

            The second domain, i.e., streaming films through OTT (called ‘online curated content’) and the third, ‘online news’, are now subject to strict categorisation, code of ethics and an elaborate mechanism of grievance-disposal. Films have not only to clearly indicate the level of audience aimed for, but follow a rigorous all-encompassing code. While some policing may have been necessary, one hopes that this does not stifle creativity and counter culture. The catch, however, lies in ‘grievances’ voiced literally by any person and such grievances now have three levels of disposal. The first is through self-regulation and then by appeal to industry associations. The latter have to set up adjudicatory bodies headed by a senior judge who is screened by the government. If this does not give relief, the aggrieved can approach the government, that can then play god. The dissatisfaction will be decided by a high-sounding ‘oversight mechanism’ which is basically a committee consisting of officials from eight ministries — irrespective of whether they understand the nuances or not. Thus, a single person who feels his sensitivity or sensibility is ‘hurt’ by either a digital news item or by an online film or web series can soon play havoc. We may recall how the web series called Tandav faced strong allegations of insulting one religion and its producers had to run from court to court to ward off arrest.

 

         With such an ever-increasing tendency of the self righteous to be alarmed at perceived slights to one’s religion and culture, this ‘oversight mechanism’ is likely to be quite overburdened by complaints. The very mechanism may simply backfire. In any case, even the best of intentions always find a way of getting ‘caged’ in the wonderland of bureaucracy. One can foresee the ‘Authorised Officer’ under rule 13, probably a joint secretary of the information and broadcasting ministry, presiding over the destiny of India’s culture and tradition. The regulations are surely creating another Frankenstein, who will exercise his powers as “desired by the minister” and those who direct the minister. The attempt to tame troublesome online news portals and instil traditional virtues in OTT films and web series is surely ushering in a new era of perverse controls.

       

 (Please Click Here to Read The Article on New Indian Express Website)

              

Greet, Cheer, Clap: Mutuality in Indian Civilisation

 

              Greet, Cheer, Clap: Mutuality in Indian Civilisation

 

                                              Jawhar Sircar

                              New Indian Express, 17 February 2021

 

 

              Civilisational studies are quite complex as each one is quite unique or else it would not qualify for the term. Basically, cultures represent organic responses of a people to the requirements of their ecosystem, both organic and inorganic.

 

          In India, for instance, we really do not wish “good morning” and “good evening”, except to a westernised clientele or (in recent times) to colleagues. We hardly ever greet our family members or helping hands. Many, of course, insist that we have traditionally greeted people with Pranam or Namaskaram or Vanakkam or Sat Sri Akal or something similar. But there is hardly any supporting evidence from our literature and records in pre-modern times about its daily and universal use. This is certainly not an indictment — it is only a fact that reveals a trait worth noting. For instance, when we shop, we exchange no pleasantries as in the western world, but get straight to the point. One is now told that we had greetings like Jai Shri Ram or Radhe Radhe, but one hardly notices people saying so even now, except perhaps in certain small pockets or to provoke Mamata Banerjee. Eric Hobsbawm has explained that all over the world ‘old traditions’ are invented all the time, and then bestowed retrospective respectability. Caste or class often mandated that peasants and artisans salute their ‘superiors’ (while ‘untouchables’ were kept out of sight), but then this was not ‘greeting’ — it was social subjugation. In Muslim societies, however, greeting others with Adaab or As-Salam Aleykum appears more common, but here again, several other factors also mattered. The point that we make is that as a people we have, by and large, not been habituated to greeting each other and the mutuality of relationships does not appear to have been so critical, as in other cultures.

 

             Let up now examine another closely related trait: clapping, that we made real use as one more post-colonial habit. Despite this, we are surely among the most unenthusiastic and non-energetic clappers in the world. Our root languages, Sanskrit and Tamil, as well as the languages that were inspired by them have words for clapping. But our literature hardly mentions its public expression as in cheering performing artistes or competitive sportsmen. Even the tales of archery or wrestling that we hear of in the hoary past were contests limited to just a few aristocrats. In fact, we hardly hear of grand games or athletic competitions in our history. Though we built glorious stupas, monasteries and temples, we have no archeological evidence of public auditoriums or stadiums in ancient India. Nothing like the Greek amphitheatres or Roman stadia or the Colosseum. Several mandapams attached to temples were used for the performing arts, but except the two mighty Chola temples, their circulation area was usually small and constricted by pillars. Even the dance and music halls in pre-colonial palaces were restricted, with a purpose, of course. We are not discussing rare exceptions like the hall of the Thirumalai Nayakas of Madurai and the later palaces built in the 19^th and 20^th centuries. Classical music and dance were, of course, limited to the classes and not meant for the masses. Creating public spaces for performances and sports does not appear to have been a cultural priority, nor was cheering.

 

          We may mention here that, in the social history of mankind, open public events, clapping and cheering have played quite an important role. Sociobiologist Desmond Morris says that “when we applaud a performer, we are, in effect, patting him on the back from a distance." Among the oldest texts, the Bible mentions several times that people clapped in approval when kings were appointed or at public events. Rulers acknowledged this affirmation of support as it conferred greater legitimacy. Ancient Greeks also used this mass communication technique at their public forums and amphitheatres, equating clapping with auditory voting. In his book, Gestures and Acclamations in Ancient Rome, Greg Aldrete actually confirmed that "This is how rulers gauged the people...... (and) it was a poll of their feelings." Roman emperors are known to have taken public enthusiasm and frenzy at the Colosseum to barbaric levels. On the whole, clapping and cheering encouraged contestants to excel and also helped integrate societies, by instilling group conscious and participation. The stratified, status-determined society of India may, however, not have required them.

 

           The only major examples of public clapping we can recall are during bhajans and when Chaitanya Mahaprabhu broke out into his ecstatic dance and song. But these examples actually reinforce the postulate that clapping does assist human bonding and breaks down social barriers. The Vaishnava movement of medieval Eastern India attracted masses through rhythmic songs played to the beat-stirring hand-held musical clappers, the khartal, and the earthen mridangam-like drum called khol. There may surely be other examples in pre-modern India, but the fact remains that our history does not highlight mass involvement at large public performances and sports.

 

           Let us remember that when we fold our hands firmly in a Namaste, we also ensure that touch is impossible. It is quite possible that Indic civilisation succeeded in bonding incredibly diverse ethnic groups into one, maybe because it imposed its own rules of coexistence — and ensured distinct boundaries, clamped hierarchies and maintained exclusivity in communication and contact.  

 

(Please Click Here to Read the Article on New IndianExpress Website)

 

Who Really Insulted the Tricolour

 

  Who Really Insulted the Tricolour

  

    Jawhar Sircar

The Wire, 5^th Feb 2021

 

       

           “India was saddened by the insult to the tricolour on Republic Day” stated Prime Minister Modi, a few days ago. He was referring obviously to the mayhem that broke out when farmers, their friends and enemies streamed into Delhi that day. ‘India’, on behalf of whom Modi now speaks with unusual authority, is surely entitled to feel more than hurt if the flag was desecrated. This charge, however, camouflages more than it reveals. During the protest, the national flag atop Red Fort was not only untouched, but the Nishan Sahib flag that was hoisted on the fort’s ramparts was certainly not the flag of ‘Khalistan’ — as was let loose into the breeze, quite mischievously. It was at a considerable distance from the tricolour and its pole was nowhere near in height. What intrigues us the most is why the person who who planted the flag is moving around so sure of himself and posting video messages on the social media. Since the entire world knows that he was (and may still be) associated with the ruling party, it is surely time for the nurser of hurts to come out and declare his ‘official’ position on him. After all, the flag-hoister has flaunted his photograph next to the PM, and since this cannot be dismissed as ‘crowd scene’ snap, “the nation needs to know” who or what prompted him to cause the hurt.

 

        The narrative that is being sought to be peddled is, however, fraught with danger. By highlighting that someone from the Sikh community defiled the sacred flag, an entire people is sought to be dragged in. It has always produced excellent farmers and has historically provided the finest of soldiers — lots more than people whose belligerent talk is certainly not matched by their numbers joining the army. A patriotic community just cannot be vilified, just because it took the lead in opposing suspiciously rushed-through pieces of legislation. What cerebrally handicapped cheerleaders have not understood, among countless other things, is that the long, peaceful agitation of farmers at Singhu is fast becoming a metaphor for righteous resistance — and may soon join the ranks of Chipko, Champaran or Bardoli. Public imagination is in the process of inscribing the name of the tormentor who launched unprovoked depredations on agitating agriculturalists quite permanently into popular lore. Once that happens, woe betide the villain of such balladic tales — for his name shall be spat upon for ever.

 

              Even dropping innuendos about Sikhs fomenting  trouble and proclaiming them or a section as ‘anti-national separatists’ is outrageous, without first providing solid evidence. Some Khalistani supporters may have penetrated the huge ocean of protesting farmers, but can anyone swear that there is no foreign agent ensconced within the upper echelons of this regime — or any other? Punjab has suffered more that its share of political outrage, stoked often by religious fanatics and their opponents. It is only prudent not to stomp with jackboots on sensitive issues that may ignite other problems. To fling conspiracy theories around would also whip up outrage among an already dangerously charged fan-base. It is imperative for the regime to desist from short term outwitting games and, instead, attend to the disaffection caused by these Acts. Two simple public statements may defuse the situation immediately — one, that the time-tested MSP (minimum support price) system would remain, and the other that all the talk of Ambani-Adani grabbing farm produce is not true.

 

         A ruler would then not have to dig deep trenches, build concrete walls and drive killer spikes to barricade himself from his own people. Besides, if we are to give some credence to organisations of agitating farmers, that have held together millions in absolute peace for over two months, there is certainly much more that what met the eye and the television cameras on India’s most boisterous Republic Day. The identity of those agent provocateurs and others who broke into Delhi with so relative ease, much before the appointed hour of the peaceful ‘tractor rally’, and then fought pitched battles with the police needs just time and sincerity to be established. There is abundant camera footage available. It were the unruly exertions of these groups that incensed captive television audiences. The latter was larger than usual, as it was a holiday, and everything appeared to be working on cues. Anchors competed with each other to scream and condemn the violence — as is only expected when dramatic displays of indignation at dissent have become so institutionalised.

 

             Contemporary history tells us that India has seen many such and several more virulent protests in recent decades, but hardly ever has public vexation been titrated and channelised so effectively. Those who opposed well-fortified governments then were certainly not  doing so by showering rose petals on the sentinels. But, they were not automatically condemned as seditionists and user-friendly media did not bay for their blood. Let us recall, for instance, the Nav Nirman Andolan of Gujarat in which, in which Narendra Modi claims to have played an active role. Destruction of public property was rampant as was arson, and credible reports indicate that least a hundred persons died in violent clashes with government forces. About three thousand were injured and police records attest that over 8,000 were arrested. Literally, hundreds of other similar destructive public protests and eruptions have wracked the country since then, but regime-apologists were not let loose to tear their vocal chords in frenzied bouts of feigned horror. The point is that protests do often boil over — in every age and in every country. The nonstop, mindless violence in the USA during the recent ‘Black Lives Matter’ agitation is just one painful example. No one in his right mind can either encourage or condone violence, but balanced are also desirable. Rulers also need to make more sincere and less juvenile media-targeted attempts to get to the roots of such effervescent angst.

 

            When Modi mentions of India’s sadness at the insult to the tricolour, it is only befitting to recall the stand that his own parent organisation, the RSS, took just before Independence. Its mouthpiece, Organiser, mentioned in its issues of 17^th and 22^nd July 1947, that the Indian tricolour will "never be respected and owned by the Hindus.” According to it, “The word three is in itself an evil, and a flag having three colours will certainly produce a very bad psychological effect and is injurious to a country." This is obviously incorrect, as ‘three’ is so prominent in Hinduism — from the trishul to trimurti, the three-pronged sacred weapon of Hindus to the holy triumvirate of Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwar. Modi’s Guru M.S. Golwalkar, the second chief of the RSS, also bemoaned that Independent India’s “leaders have set up a new flag for the country — why did they do so?” In his Bunch of Thoughts, he declared that “Ours is an ancient and great nation with a glorious past. Then, had we no flag of our own? Had we no national emblem at all these thousands of years? Undoubtedly we had. Then why this utter void, this utter vacuum in our minds?" Golwalkar did not, however, elaborate which ancient national emblem or flag he was alluding to. We know, of course, that he wanted to replace the all-embracing tricolour flag with the Bhagwa Dhwaj, the saffron 'split flag' of the RSS, that represented only Hindus.

 

       It is, therefore, appropriate to view Narendra Modi’s present comments on the tricolour and “insults to it” in this background. Far from disowning this heritage, he actually cherishes it. Including, it was Sardar Patel, who he worships so publicly and at public expense, who actually compelled Golwalkar and the Hindu Right to retract their opposition to the Indian national flag. He set it as a pre-condition for lifting the 18-month ban on the RSS and for releasing its leaders from jail.  It may, therefore, be wiser to let India and Indians decide for themselves which insult to the national flag really hurts them more.

 

(Please Click Here to Read the Article on TheWire Website)

 

 

Look, Who’s Clean: Hygiene, India and the West

 

            Look, Who’s Clean: Hygiene, India and the West

                                             Jawhar Sircar

                            New Indian Express, 4^th Feb 2021

 

 

         What the British found quite disgusting during their long uninvited stay in India was that Indians defecated in open fields, squatting. The Western world picked up and echoed this narrative and these toilet practices were painted as decisively inferior. A massive Swachh Bharat mission has now been launched on a war footing and by this year its target is to make India free of this archaic custom of open defection — which has to go, as it is anachronistic.

 

          To appreciate our old toilet customs, we may dabble a bit with history and geography. What lay at their root was the Indian obsession with avoiding ‘pollution’ and ‘impurities’, the worst were (and are) faeces of humans, including one’s own. Therefore, the farther away from home that one disposed human excreta the better it was. This meant defecating in the open, which was considered a very desirable cultural habit. Using water to clean oneself thereafter was/is non negotiable and several classes insisted on a complete bath after the unclean act was over and also changing into fresh clothes. Till a few decades ago, relatives from villages would be horrified to see how toilets were not far but attached to urban homes, where everyone used the same ‘spot’. So pronounced was the revulsion of rural guests that they would often insist on venturing out for toilet.

 

         As MN Srinivas has stated ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’ constitute  the very principles on which Hinduism rests. In fact, Sanskritisation insists, among other essentials, on the strict observance of standards of bodily and social hygiene. Any culture that did not use water so passionately and did not practice such all encompassing ritual purity was branded as barbarian or mleccha. Contact with them was quite unpardonable.

 

           Most western civilisations had, however, no such fixation with touch/cleanliness or water/washing — even when they had access to clean water. Their forbidding cold was not the only determinant, and Europeans (and their white colonial cousins) had completely different attitudes to cleanliness and water per se. This often rested on the scarcest of its use. Bathing was rare and inner garments were often stitched on to bodies, for months. This explains why flowers, perfumes and aromatics were always in great demand. Human excreta was never liked anywhere, but it did not meet with the same loathing as in India. Though some classes occasionally used improvised soapy materials, regular washing of hands was considered unnecessary there. Thus, when surgeon and obstetrician, Ignaz Semmelweis, suggested in 1847 that doctors in Vienna wash their hands before and after operations and deliveries, he was considered a crank. He lost his job, had a mental breakdown and died in an asylum at just 47.           

 

             Even a century after the British made public their detestation of Indian toilet habits, late Victorian-age British were throwing out buckets of faeces and urine straight out of their windows. Numerous records attest that in the 19^th century, when Britain was busy ‘civilising’ India, London’s air was actually insufferably foul and just outrageously smelly. The Thames river belched of human waste all the time. So unbearable was it that in 1858 — the  very year when the Crown took India over from the East India Company — a national emergency called the ‘Great Stink’ was declared. Sewerage pipes had finally to be laid as unavoidable, and it took several years to complete installing 13,000 miles of pipes under and from London.

 

              Incidentally, both germs and bacteria were virtually unknown, until Louis Pasteur could prove that ‘germs’ really existed and caused disease. The advanced west believed till the mid-19^th century that ‘miasma’ or vapours brought disease. But it took three decades thereafter for Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch to discover ‘bacteria’ and its treatment. ‘Viruses’ were discovered  another decade later. How then was it that ancient Indians linked human excreta with disease? In their erudite research article published in June 2018 in the ‘Royal Society Journal’, entitled The structure and function of pathogen disgust, Val Curtis and Mícheál de Barra have explained that instant revulsion at pathogens was a genetic safeguard. They also stated that “Human excreta are both a major source of pathogenic viruses, bacteria and helminths and an important elicitor of disgust.” In India, this was embedded in its cultural software and hygiene was hammered in by religion —like the repeated insistence in Puranas such as the Vayu, Skanda and Garuda. They prescribed diets and insisted on total hygiene to combat jwara or fevers and disease. The Garuda Purana, for instance, is clear that illness is caused by santapa atmapacharaja or unhygienic habits, which included toilet ones. But the Puranas offered no empirical explanations and are not scientific.

 

             Though the west had insisted on its seat-toilet, its flushable version is, in fact, a recent invention. But now after it has destroyed the healthy Indian habit of the squatting toilet by touting that its commode is more ‘civilised’, it is discovering otherwise. It is slowly realising the virtues of the squatting mode, both for better bowel movements and for healthier knees. Let us hope that India’s uncompromising insistence on using water hits them soon, where it matters, and is adopted.

 

(PleaseRead Here to Read the Article on New Indian Express Website)

 

 

TRP scam proves the best of technology and systems can be compromised and sabotaged

 

            

         TRP scam proves the best of technology and systems    

                       can be compromised and sabotaged

 

                                                            Jawhar Sircar

                                        National Herald, 31 January 2021

 

 

          A personal sense of betrayal overtakes some of us who spent so much time and energy to assist the broadcasting industry in setting up what was perceived to be state-of-the-art technology of television viewership measurement. One should have realised that the finest of systems can always be sabotages by perfidious humans and devilish brains of. The Indian Broadcasting Federation (IBF) had expressed its dream of putting in position its own ratings body for long before it could succeed in doing so in 2015. It’s Broadcasting Audience Ratings Council (BARC) was the first public body that took on the monopoly enjoyed by a private rating agency called TAM Media Research. This was jointly owned by AC Nielsen and Kantar Media Research/IMRB, both of which are very well known international media houses. Besides, there was a smaller ratings firm called aMap, but the dominant player, TAM, faced perennial charges against it. The first was that it had too little a sampling base that operated through too few digital measurement meters and also that the addresses of some of these metered television households were known to a select few television broadcasters. It was alleged that these big players bribed people in some of those households where TV rating meters were installed and thereby rigged the meters in their favour. Even with a lot of assistance and guidelines from the government, It took BARC five years to actually start functioning, as the industry had to invest a lot in its hardware and software. But once it established its presence, almost the entire broadcasting industry and its advertisers moved towards this more public and transparent entity, BARC.

 

            The reason for narrating this story is to explain the background in which today’s totally targeted BARC system came into being and the extremely high hopes with which it was begotten and nursed. Even more than this, it is to recall that underhand games were known quite well under earlier rating systems as well, proving that we remain all very bad students of history. It teaches lessons that we never care to understand and then we blame poor history for repeating itself. It is, of course, a little difficult to digest how a public body so jealousy overseen by competing rivals could be taken for so big a ride. After all, beside the Indian Broadcasters Federation (IBF), BARC is governed by the apex federations of advertising and media players of India, the ISA and the AAAI. It is a pity that such hawk-eyed oversight failed to realise or suspect that its own appointed gatekeeper was compromising his and the organisation’s integrity. While governmental bodies remain notorious for their lethargic, bureaucratic style of functioning, and also because many a public servant is purchasable, while competing private bodies are said to be more alert and efficient. Like crabs in a bucket that keep sharp watch over each other, it is more than strange that the suspiciously high ratings that were awarded by BARC to some were not questioned by die-hard rivals represented on the body. Unless, of course, there are more skeletons that are yet to tumble out of the BARC cupboard.

 

            When one is openly blessed by the most powerful and forbidding prime minister in India’s history, one assumes, perhaps, that one is entitled to treat all those he targets as criminals ripe for third degree verbal torture. Especially, if the person or the organisation has opposed or differed with India’s most infallible leader. In fact, had it not been for this undisguised arrogance that this channel-head started displaying with his whiplashes, we may never even have known about the BARC’s rating scandal. In fact, the brutal manner in which this regime’s darling anchor went about manufacturing a sensational case accusing all and sundry in the Bollywood film industry after the suicide of one its stars was not only intolerable, but downright scurrilous. As he blazed on ruthlessly with his malicious conjured narrative, slashing the world around as just expendable ‘collateral damage’, he made the mistake of attacking the reputation of the police as well. Then, nemesis struck him. Isaac Newton had articulated certain laws of nature and one of them spoke of an equal and opposite reaction. This appeared in the form of a criminal case filed by Mumbai Police against him and all those who participated in the alleged manipulation of the TRP of BARC, by bribing certain metered households. The world’s largest network of television measurement and one of the most sophisticated had thus been breached by its own CEO who claims to have been paid middling amounts of money.

 

             A mass of communication through WhatsApp messages between the CEO of BARC and the head of the nation’s hottest and most acerbic channel was unlocked by the police. It was then leaked quite interestingly into the public domain. What appears quite clearly from these messages is that not only was the TRP system compromised, but the topmost secret of the State, so critical to the nation’s security and safety, may also have been divulged. This is more dangerous, and indeed, worrisome. As advocate Prashant Bhushan has demanded, it needs to be probed deeper. This can only be done by the court if it is interested or if political parties raise the issue in parliament. All other controversies and enquiries can wait, but the strong signal that someone, obviously high up, may have leaked the news of India’s top secret strike that involved the military and the air force just cannot.

         Apart from this glaring reference there are several others that reveal a very rare proximity of a media person with the prime minister — one who has gone down in history as the only one who never addressed a press conference during his tenure. It speaks of how this nearness and dearness appeared to be of adroit use in getting things done. This is what may have induced the CEO of BARC to play the game, as he appears to have been overawed by the close encounters of the deeply political kind. There is a reference to a Rathore (we had one as the junior information minister) freezing a scandal about how the indicted television channel siphoned off Doordarshan’s revenues. It would be only proper to get into it, if not for anything else, to salvage the young politician’s reputation.

 

           What appears to be panning out from these messages is more than just how the game of thrones is played: it reveals the murky rivalries that play behind the apparently united phalanx of the godi media supporting the present dispensation. Thanks to the chronically intemperate nature of our protagonist, we are rewarded with delightful invectives about the other television greats of the regime’s genuflecting brigade. There is, thus, no monolith we confront but an intensely divided ‘me only’ band of media and other forces that surround the great leader. Let us listen to history’s whispers that no such arrogant autocrat has ever been perpetuate his rule if he insists on surrounding himself with such a squabbling army of fawning retainers         

 

(PleaseClick Here to Read the Article on National Herald Website)

 

 

After a Republic Day to Remember, Will the Prime Minister Finally Read the Signs?

 

                             After a Republic Day to Remember,

              Will the Prime Minister Finally Read the Signs?

 

                                                      Jawhar Sircar

                                              The Wire, 27^th January 2021

 

        It has surely been quite a different Republic Day this time and its unfortunate events will not fade as easily as the details of more spectacular performances on Rajpath. Not only because of the unexpected action that took place way beyond the agreed venues. But with the internet down, or certainly not at its best, and real time coverage tapering off, one is not certain what exactly happened in Delhi from 2 pm onward. 24x7 colour news television has certainly grown a lot since it made its debut in the war in Kuwait in early 1991 — 30 years ago, and well, that’s a lot of time. But most footage and reportage appeared to be from behind the safe security of the well-armed police. This is evident from the lengths of the shots of agitating farmers or whoever else were assuming their role. Having faced law and order in the raw, on both sides of the barricade, the numbers of farmers and tractors appeared too little to threaten Delhi Police and whatever else it has commandeered from outside. The distance of the cameramen from the really hot action-spots also revealed more than just the physical dimension of the problem. On the other hand, the footage captured by some foreign channels in the thick of things and their studied neutrality in reporting were so admirable.

 

           All said and done, the agitating farmers did break into Delhi in a manner of speaking a few hours before their agreed hour of entry. One is not sure whether it was because they wake up much earlier than those billeted in the ‘police lines’ or because of their impatience or impetuousness. But if such large loosely-organised farmers had done so after prior planning, it is surely a classic failure of police intelligence, that equals the total intelligence failure (going by the accepted narrative, of course) at Pulwama. It is unimaginable that the concerned snoops had not been able to penetrate such amorphous groups in such a long time and had this not bed able to forewarn their uniformed colleagues — that the farmers were planning not to violate the agreed script. This explosion of protest was, after all, on the 61^st frustrating day of the farmers’ so-far strictly Gandhian protest. Any regime that expected utter docility and perfect discipline even then — that too, from the rather healthy specimens of humanity which inhabit these regions is living in its own created paradise. This delusion had overtaken Indira Gandhi in the past, as she had mandated that she be told what she wanted to hear. When rulers impose on organic lines of governance, including advice and prognosis of dangers, they insulate themselves from ground realities — at their own peril. ‘Intelligence’, as the term implies, is a tool that thus fails these hegemons who do not measure up to all its meanings.

 

          One is certainly not condoning the breaches or the flare-ups and definitely not the grievous assaults on policemen. A hundred must have suffered for little fault of theirs though one is not sure how many were injured in the scuffles and from the long arm of the law. The destruction of public property means taxpayers suffer, but Delhi Police discovered to its dismay in handling these matters is surely tougher than framing criminal and sedition charges against those not so guilty. What the police had set up so cockily  as immovable barriers to prevent protesters from entering were tossed away by the hefty and the determined. These case-studies and erroneous tactics would have be re-examined in police seminars and workshops for quite some time to come. The failure of the farmers’ leaders to discipline their supporters or whoever was up to dangerous mischief was abysmal. No one can ever condone such violence but one could at least anticipate that Red Fort and ITO could be targets, once agitators broke into the city from multiple directions. The first has always been a favourite one for all who seek to enter the city in triumph — from Timur Lang and Nadir Shah to Indian Sepoys of Meerut in 1857 or British commanders like Nicholson and Wilson soon thereafter. Having said that, one must say that the administration displayed commendable patience by not taking up the gun, because that would surely have led to worse consequences.

 

           What was so stark was that most TV anchors went on expressing a lot of indignation and some burst into emotionally-charged high-decibel outburst of rage against those who challenge the regime —often spluttering with rage. Their on-the-spot representatives with cameras appeared equally incensed and poured more inflammatory material into the sizzle. While this may be in line with the newly acquired role of this media to churn out running invectives, prosecutions and judgements, their cameras were either not corroborating or being provocative enough. The media’s age old role of not exacerbating riotous situations is fast dwindling, as TRP and patriotism rule the screen, even after it is being brought out in the public domain that the first can also jump higher, for thirty pieces of silver. Even in this new age of regime-prompted rage, we may do well to remember that credibility still matters to many, as much as the blindly devoted require their regular fixes of incendiary visuals to sustain their irrational highs.

 

            The television camera clearly showed, for instance, that the national flag was fluttering high and proud from its appointed flagstaff on Red Fort, even when a frenzied supporter clambered up, rather dextrously, on another pole to foist his flag of defiance. This was on a shorter and subordinate pole affixed outside the fort, on the ramparts. But the anchor almost choked as he kept on narrating that our sacred national flag had been defiled by some blasphemous invader. The point we submit is that such open distortions and provocative and infuriating anchoring may earn kudos from the present powers that be, but the media person besmirches his or her own reputation for ever. Besides, he or she indulges is collaborating with the divider in chief in the ruinous mission to fragment the multi-ethnic nation that defied all prophets of doom to emerge out of splinters and coalesce. This happened because so many sacrificed so much. While none expect small town provincial leaders with dubious degrees and backgrounds to possess or acquire even a fraction the vision of the Mahatma, Gurudev or Netaji, the conscience can at least prompt where to draw the line in colluding in divisionism.

 

              The Sikhs, who appear to be most prominent in this historic struggle of the farmers, have been constantly sniped at and poked on grounds of their affluence, conspiracy with Khalistanis, obscurantist opposition to brilliant reforms and sheltering of despicable middleman. As one of India’s proudest and hardiest people, who braved the sharpest of winters in the open, facing water canons and rains with equanimity, they have ignored the taunts of those who have never matched either their record of sacrifice or boldness. The Jats, who are as robust and hard-working, may be less prominent as their turbans do not stand out so colourfully. But they are as determined. Their contribution to India and its food security through the Green Revolution, is as commendable. So are those of several other farming communities that are protesting against farm laws that were hustled through. Ironically, this pre-planned ham-handing was executed by the only prime minister in history who kissed the floor of parliament before entering it for the first time, and then went out undermining this august institution of democracy, and many others as well, with a ruthlessness never seen before.

 

         The fact that the disorganised protest is retreating does not indicate that the crisis is over. In fact, it now calls not for obstinacy or continued contempt. Victimisation or encouraging the deliberate defaming of farming communities and all opposition will only worsen the situation. We now require a patient handling that transcends the craftsmanship of just words and the proven excellence of election-management. If there is any hidden statesmanship in the prime minister, it is time for it to break free and reach out to those who may well have entered the hallowed city — to demonstrate their utter seriousness. For once, the signs may be read more astutely.

 

(PleaseClick Here to Read the article on The Wire Website)

 

 

When Human Bonding is Splintered

 

                          When Human Bonding is Splintered

                                       

                                        Jawhar Sircar

 

                                New Indian Express, 8^th January, 2021

 

 

               After the unending months of 2020, we now feel a bit relieved as we assume, with or without basis, that the worst may be over. As we click the ‘pause button’ of Covid 19, it may be appropriate to attempt an interim appraisal of the effects and the devastation caused by a microscopic mass-murdering virus.

 

       Day after day, we had noted with palpitation as casualties mounted, but now we discover that the toll in India of around 1.5 lakh is the same that we lose to accidents or respiratory diseases or stroke each year. In fact, it is actually less than one fourth the number killed annually by heart disease or by deadly cancer. But, then, this Chitragupta-style of reporting to Yamraj about the relative strike rate of his gruesome weapons is not quite a pleasant task. And, the fact that the world’s most advanced nation fared much worse than us is certainly not a valid reason for even muted schadenfreude.

 

                Those who take a more magisterial view of life have noted with alarm how precariously ‘sociability’, the very pillar that holds up the human race, was attacked mercilessly by the virus. Its long-term impact may be worse than just death-tolls. The crux of this apprehension is that if ‘social distancing’ and ‘work from home’ are here to stay, our human engineering may need complete re-wiring. History tells us that the desperate need to survive against all odds, especially in the face of much more powerful carnivores, led our hominid ancestral cousins, Homo Erectus, to form hunters’ groups — some 18 lakh years ago.

 

              Since then, there was no turning back — as the human family evolved from ‘being the hunted into the hunter’. This induced our forefathers to aggregate in ever-increasing numbers, to band together for hunting and sharing the life-saving meat of jointly killed animals. As Louis Liebenberg has demonstrated in his seminal essay in the ‘Journal of Human Evolution (2008)’ on The Relevance of Persistence Hunting to Human Evolution, it was this community bonding that ensured that humanoids survived. Of the latter, our species, the Homo Sapiens, proved most adaptable and innovative and hence we advanced, while all other analogous lines became extinct. Many feel that the subsequent adoption of vegetarianism is really an evolutionary improvement. What everyone agrees is that ‘pure vegetation food’ is surely India’s invaluable gift to the world, like yoga and the zero.

 

           For these 18 lakh years, inter-human communication and team-cooperation have been our primary binders and it is this ‘community core’ where the virus hit the most. Though segregation of the infected has been practiced earlier, in epidemics like the more deadly plague, never before have so many countries of the world been infected simultaneously and ‘locked-down’ together. Scourges come and go, but this Covid-driven atomisation of human society is viewed as more devastating than the calamities that rocked us in the twentieth century. We lost 30 crore people to Smallpox; nearly 8 crore died during the Spanish flu of 1918-20 and a similar shocking number perished in the Second World War. During and after these devastations, hands joined together to mend the world and life bounced back. But this time, both ‘hands’ and ‘together’ are viewed as dark messengers of death and every person is suspect.

 

              We may, however, need to ponder further before declaring that Covid marks the end of the world we were born into. This world had already started ‘ending’ a decade ago, when faster internet connectivity and the smartphone took over. One noted with concern, long before Covid had arrived, that physical proximity was surely being trampled upon by virtual communication. The character of social bonding was altered beyond redemption. In every social gathering, we noticed how after a few moments of culture-induced bonhomie, even the best of friends or the closest of family members simply looked away from each other. They were totally engrossed elsewhere — with their mobiles. Lockdowns actually restored, to some extent, closeness within the much-neglected family or immediate groups, as everyone pooled in with basic chores and living rooms became livelier. Since work became site-agnostic and menial help was blocked out, many young and terribly busy persons went back to their parents, who double-doted on them because they had hardly ever got them so close for so long.

 

             Bruce Daisley, author of The Joy of Work, has discussed ‘personal satisfaction’ in the context of jobs and challenges, while anthropologist James Suzman looks differently. In his Work: A History of How We Spend Our Time, Suzman emphasises that keeping ourselves occupied is more essential for retaining sanity than labour-saving, productivity-obsessed technologies. Basically, we now have certain critical issues to ponder, in the context of Covid-imposed and digitally-driven fragmentation of human society. Can the scattered ‘new normal’ substitute the warmth of the primal ‘hunting group’ and its worthy successors? Will the virtual world and its task/accomplishment fixation be able to satisfy the basic craving of humans for company and relaxation? Would these dispersed humans be able to avoid the disastrous effects of anomie and depression that afflict those who de-link from emotionally essential ‘social solidarity’ groups. Only time will tell us how adroitly this distanced digitally-united universe tackles these concerns — by re-inventing itself.

 

 

(Please Click Here to Read the article on New Indian Express Website)