Walk the Talk : An Excerpt

Ms. Kalpana Sharma addressing the audience at the seminar in 2013 

Interview with Ms. Kalpana Sharma 

Ms. Kalpana Sharma, former Deputy Editor and Chief of Bureau of The Hindu (Mumbai) was here at The Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda to talk on ‘Women in Media: A Reality Check’ at a UGC sponsored regional seminar on ‘Gender and Media’ organized jointly by The Faculty of Journalism & Communication and Women’s Studies Research Centre. Ms. Sharma has over three decades of experience as a full-time journalist, and has held senior positions in Himmat Weekly, Indian Express and The Times of India. Her special areas of interest are environmental and developmental issues. She writes a fortnightly column in The Hindu's Sunday Magazine section, The Other Half – that comments on contemporary issues from a gender perspective. She is the author of Rediscovering Dharavi: Stories from Asia's Largest Slum (Penguin 2000) and has co-edited with Ammu Joseph - Whose News? The Media and Women's Issues (Sage 1994, 2006) and Terror Counter-Terror: Women Speak Out (2003). She spoke to Nidhi Shendurnikar Tere & Nalanda Tambe about her views on gender related issues and reportage in the Indian media. Excerpts from the interview are presented below:

What is your opinion about gendered media?

K.S: The way I would interpret gendered media is media that is conscious of gender. You are conscious that there is something like gender which has to be addressed in the way media conducts itself in every form. For instance, stories, headlines, content and placement of the stories and even advertisements. That is what I would call a gendered media. I do not know whether there is an academic definition but as a practitioner if someone says that we need a gendered media then I would take it positively. Of course it can also be a negative connotation, meaning the media is gendered in that your access and ability to move ahead and the stuff that you can write is determined by gender and not by your capability.

How would you relate gender with media literacy and media socialization?

K.S: Either you can say the whole thing of how gendered the media is in terms of access, both in terms of reading and accessing it. For those within the media it also means their access and ability to get ahead within the profession. That is one aspect. The other aspect what you are talking about is more in terms of content of media and whether it is sensitive to gender. In fact if you do a survey you will see that they are not. It comes out not in the most blatant forms always but with a kind of invisibility. Even something as simple as getting an expert opinion, it’s as if there are no women who are experts. It’s only men. In the electronic media if you want to get opinions of people on any controversial issue, you will see all men. Maybe one token woman! Over all these years haven’t women gained expertise to be able to express their knowledge? Due to this fact that it has always been men, you have to take that conscious effort to correct that balance by ensuring that the opinions of women are incorporated. Similarly in reporting, now at least there is some consciousness in the use of noun and pronoun; like ‘he’ and ‘she’. There are many editors now who consciously say “she and her”. The editors specifically write “she” because we have always said “he”. It’s a small token thing which is important. Moreover, gender neutral terms like “journalists” and “reporters” are also being used but that is not enough.

What is still continuously missing in the media is that there are many issues which have an impact on women, but there is no effort made to assess that impact in routine reporting. For every event there is a gendered impact which the media fails to understand.

So can media literacy change it?

K.S: Media literacy is again a two way thing. It is how we read the media. What I am telling you is media literacy because I have read the media to understand that they are not gendered. However, making our media persons literate is actually what we are talking about. Ongoing education for journalists and people of the media on important issues can make a difference because at the moment you get into the media and that is the end of your training. When I joined, we used to have mentoring from the seniors. So you would work on the stories, they would look at it and tell you what is wrong and if they edited it then they would explain you why they did so. If you went on an assignment, your senior would brief you before you went. When you came back you would have a debriefing session where you explained what you saw and discussed how to do the best story and what angles to take. None of these takes place now. So there is no ongoing education and definitely there is a need for it. I don’t think at the moment anyone is even thinking about that. We have tried through our women and media network to intervene especially with topics like sexual assault with some media houses and one or two were open to it. This is not insignificant, but very little.  

As a media consumer, is it going to make a difference, if I am media literate and aware about what goes on in the newsroom? Is that going to help alter how media consumers look at the way media reports on gender issues?

K.S: Even if they question, what difference will it make to media reporting? Of course there is a need for media literacy and I think it should be introduced in schools. They should be taught how media should be looked at skeptically, the particular way in which news is manufactured and presented.

What is your opinion about the media’s role as an agent of socialization in purview of increasing gender related crimes in society?  

K.S: It is an agent of socialization when it comes to reinforcing gender stereotyping. Media keeps on gender stereotyping especially in advertisements. Eg: Media after a sexual assault dwells on what the girl wore and was she drunk or not. So this socializes people to believe that women who wear certain types of clothes are the one who get raped. To me the most dangerous thing is the extremely insensitive manner in which media reports sexual violence. Details about the crime committed are not necessary, they may be necessary for the case but not for the public. It is just to get one more story. So the end results are that you are not sensitive to the person who has suffered. It also creates an atmosphere of fear which is of no help to women. People tend to believe that everything outside is more unsafe and dangerous and this is what the media successfully projects.  

What is your opinion about the media’s role (especially the press) in the Delhi gang rape incident?

K.S: The gang rape took place in Delhi and it is a media capital. So before that a Dalit woman would have been raped outside Delhi and nobody would have bothered. This was a girl who was coming from a cinema, right in the middle of Delhi, who rides on the bus and who got raped. So it had all the elements of something that the media would jump on. So they did. Now that the convictions have come, media has definitely played a role in that. One worrying aspect was we are not allowed to give the identity of the woman and so media creates fictitious names and this is completely wrong. You are denying this woman a double agency. I mean she feels that she has lost an agency by the manner she was assaulted and then you go with the name where she doesn’t have any choice. You didn’t ask her that should we call you Damini or Nirbhaya. Just because you are too lazy to figure out how you will report without giving the name, you just decide to give her a name? So that was a very wrong thing on the part of media. Of course after a certain point media started horrifying and it just became a circus. The good thing was the Justice Verma Committee was appointed and laws were amended. The negative part is that such cases will go on happening as we have one live example of the Mumbai gang rape recently. This is the media story now. People staying abroad now say that people in India have become very dangerous for women because of the kind of hype in India media.

Was the media very intrusive during the Delhi gang rape and did it go overboard? Where is the media when rapes are happening all over the country?

K.S: Obviously, the selection of this particular one, apart from the horror of it was because of the fact that it was a Delhi based rape. Even Bombay gang rape didn’t get so much hype. The Mumbai girl has survived and she is a brave girl as she went and filed an FIR immediately. Many such cases are not given space in the media.

So does that signify the need for media attention for justice to be delivered? Are we proceeding towards a state of affairs where media hype is required to procure justice? Is this a positive or negative trend?

K.S: It’s a negative thing. As ultimately the criminal justice system must work for everybody and the exception cannot be the rule. What is happening now is that we are just concentrating on these exceptions. Ultimately people who are more educated and better off are able to draw attention and get the justice that the poor do not get. So that is what is to be addressed. A woman of any caste, if she is assaulted then she should be confident to go the police. There is no system wherein if a victim of sexual violence reports to a hospital, there are no facilities where immediately forensic reports are taken and counseling is done. Even if she files a case, it’s a long process after that. There are many issues and concerns to be accounted for.

There is no effort by the local media on such issues. What they would usually do is to sensationalize the story and use it to create hype after which it fizzles down. There is no follow up and hence basic issues remain unaddressed. It is certainly good to have mechanisms in place but what about the effort on part of the media to investigate whether these are functional or not?

The responsibility cannot be only on the media. Whatever the systems that are put in place are dependent on the higher authorities and they also have to take efforts to ensure implementation. However media scrutiny always helps. For instance take the entire justice system. The media there can only address specific issues. What can be done instead is newspapers can ask their reporters to take follow ups of certain cases every year which need not be the high profile ones. 

What is your opinion about imparting gender sensitive training to the media professionals?

K.S: It is very much needed. One way is through journalism courses. Gender sensitive reporting should be a compulsory component in all the media training courses. Also I think you can bring in the journalists who are conscious of the media aspect and will do something about it. Secondly, I think all the media schools can contact their local media and offer them gender trainings. So it’s possible that you get a response because if it is some university then they might think that there isn’t some other agenda, so they might respond. On the other hand if the editor finds a need to impart such training to the journalists then it is quite possible because the journalists themselves won’t sense any need to take the training. Certainly there has to be an intervention. Our network of women and media in Mumbai approached two newspapers on the issue of gender sensitive training and we conducted a half-day workshop on this for the entire staff. We really had a good discussion about reporting of sexual assaults. After this workshop both the organizations reported such issues very sensitively by not disclosing the names of victims of sexual assaults. So something good happened after our efforts.  

Do corporatization, commercialization and sensationalism in the media impact the coverage of gender based issues?

K.S: I don’t think gender based issues generally but I think it is gender based violence. This is because it links between the selling of the product and the kind of product which will sell it. So the conclusion is crimes of passion, of murders, suicides in prominent individuals; all these people like to read about and so they will give full coverage. All the newspapers now have space for the crime reports. They give half a page to the crime stories. Graphic and minute details are given and in suicide literally how the suicide is committed is also covered. You see newspapers anywhere else in the world and you will never see this. In India though, commercialization in media has completely gone off-board. There is no sense of balancing issues and whatever sells is given priority.  

Cross-border friendships: A Dreamer’s Recipe for Peace

Chintan Girish Modi is a young Mumbai based peacebuilder striving for friendly relations between India and Pakistan Nidhi Shendurnikar Tere spoke to him about Friendships Across Borders: Aao Dosti Karein, his initiative to transform the hostility between the two countries by building on the power of cross-border friendships through social media, supported by on-the-ground interactions and workshops with schools and colleges.

Chintan Girish Modi

What inspired you to be a peacebuilder? Any reasons for specifically choosing to work on India-Pakistan issues?

I am not sure if there is a special category of person called ‘peacebuilder’. I feel personally perturbed by the animosity that India and Pakistan have built towards each other for decades, and I want this to change. People in both countries have many stereotypes about each other, thanks to how we learn about the other side from history books, and more so from the media. Politicians, of course, know how to whip up nationalist sentiments at the drop of a hat, and spread hate. This makes me deeply upset because the focus is deepening divides instead of celebrating our shared heritage and interconnectedness. Sitting and wishing for a transformation will yield no results if I don’t do something. This belief is what led to my getting involved in India-Pakistan exchanges aimed at improving relations between the two countries through people-to-people contact. I must be honest and say that I have done very little but I am doing what I can.

How did you begin your journey into peacebuilding?

I used to work with the Kabir Project at the Srishti School of Art, Design and Technology in Bangalore. It is led by Shabnam Virmani, a documentary filmmaker and dear friend of mine, who turned to the poetry of Kabir after the violence and insanity unleashed in Gujarat in 2002. Of all her films, the one that affected me most was ‘Had-Anhad’ (Bounded-Boundless). It had a big impact on me, particularly the Pakistan sequences in the film. The ceremony at Wagah seemed absurd. The people on the other side seemed so similar to the ones on this side. Something felt utterly strange. I felt a deep sorrow but at that point of time I didn’t know that I too could do something. This experience stayed at the back of my mind. I joined the Kabir Project to look after the educational outreach aspect of their work. It was a rich and meaningful experience, soaking in the poetry of Kabir, Bulleh Shah and Mira, learning from them, and sharing that with children and teachers through workshops and interactions.

After that, I moved back to Mumbai. In 2012, while working with Shishuvan School in Mumbai, I had the opportunity to visit Pakistan as part of Exchange for Change, a project run jointly by the Citizens Archive of Pakistan and a Delhi-based organization Routes 2 Roots. After that, I have participated in other peacebuilding initiatives, and also been to Pakistan twice, for the Children’s Literature Festival in Lahore in 2013, and the one in Islamabad in 2014.

Any hiccups through this journey?

Oh yes! I have come across people who think that being Indian is synonymous with being anti-Pakistan. I used to get annoyed earlier but I realized that I needed to stay calm in order to continue doing my work. Prejudices will not disappear overnight. Those who are hurting will not heal in a jiffy. In order to do peacebuilding work, one has to prepare oneself to listen to all sorts of perspectives, yet stay calm. It’s not easy. Not at all. One of my school mates once commented on my Facebook page, stating that I should give up my Indian citizenship if I love Pakistanis so much. It is a rather simplistic understanding you, see. It is possible to love Indians and Pakistanis, and Afghans, and Americans, and Tibetans, and Palestinians. Why should love and friendship be restricted only to people who share our nationality? In fact, I prefer using words like ‘friendship’ and ‘love’ over ‘peace’. Friendship sounds like something you and I can do. Peace somehow sounds distant, something that is decided by people who sign treaties and agreements.

What keeps you going in the face of these hiccups?

Hope. And people who share my hope and dreams.

Tell us about your collaborations and friendships through this journey.

I have many dear friends in Pakistan, and there are some wonderful anecdotes to share. However, given the constraints of space, I’m going to mention only the ones I’ve also collaborated with on specific programmes. Anam Zakaria and Haroon Khalid in Islamabad are the ones who come to mind immediately. I met them thanks to the Exchange for Change project I mentioned earlier. Since then, we’ve done a lot of stuff together – whether it was participating with them at WISCOMP’s Conflict Transformation Workshop in Delhi, or working with Haroon at the Hri Institute for Southasian Research and Exchange, or being fellow panelists at a discussion on peace education in Islamabad. They are two of my dearest friends, and I make it a point to meet them every time I visit Pakistan.

Then there’s Shiraz Hassan, my journalist friend from Rawalpindi, who is one of the nicest people I know. He speaks little but is an amazingly warm-hearted being who I remember most for bike rides, walks through bazaars, and his unique sense of humour. Aman Ki Asha gave us the opportunity to participate in the ‘Conversations’ series, an exchange of letters over six weeks, and these got published in The News. We discussed art, history, music, literature, politics, our work, our everyday lives, the similarities and shared cultural heritage. I eventually met Shiraz in person on my second trip to Pakistan.

I’d also like to tell you about my friend Sheharyar Rizwan who lives in Lahore. He’s a journalist with Dawn, and we have been paired for this year-long programme called the Building Peace Project. We are one of ten such India-Pakistan pairs who write collaborative blogs, stay in touch through social media, and participate in online discussions around prescribed readings. I am so grateful to have discovered Sheharyar. He lives so far away but I know if I have to reach out for help, I can do that without a moment’s doubt. You see what I mean? One feels personally invested in friendships. ‘Peace’ just seems so out there.

Tell us something about Friendships Across Borders: Aao Dosti Karein.

Actually, the idea is quite simple. In India, there’s so much bad news about Pakistan that it is almost impossible for a large number of people to even imagine that they could be friends with someone across the border. Similarly, in Pakistan, there are people who promote hostility towards India. I felt like there’s only so much that conferences and seminars can do. People-to-people contact is where the real stuff of peacebuilding seems to lie. I thought it would be a good idea to share stories of cross-border friendships, so I started looking for these. I got Pakistanis to write about their friends in India, and Indians to write about their friends in Pakistanis. These stories are about how they first met each other, what this friendship means to them in the context of the hostile relations between our countries, how their perceptions about the other side have changed because of this friendship, etc.

When I think of friendship, I think of warmth and caring, of opening up one’s heart to listen and be there. See, you can be friends with people of another nationality. When you find common ground over so many other things, nationality becomes just one of your many attributes. Who you are is not just your citizenship, or the country you were born into. I also visit schools and colleges, on invitation, to talk about these ideas with young people, sometimes using art, theatre and films.

What are your views on young people and their role in peace-building?

Young people living in India and Pakistan, and in the South Asian diaspora, have a very important role to play. Our countries have been in conflict for too long, and our people, societies and economies have suffered a great deal. Though a large number of young people have grown up listening to stories of Partition because their families were personally affected, many of them want to establish friendly relations with people across the border. People want the healing to happen. The pain is too much to bear. Despite the stereotypes people in both countries have about each other, many Pakistanis would love to travel to India, meet their friends and family here, visit their religious shrines, study here, or even just travel around. Similarly, several Indians would like to go to Pakistan, either to see the homes of their ancestors who migrated, or because they have friends they’ve met on Facebook, or have studied with in the US, Europe, or elsewhere, or just for tourism. It’s such a tragedy that we don’t even have enough exchange programmes for young people in both countries. Imagine Indians and Pakistanis studying together, or working at the same place. Such amazing opportunities to learn about each other, and move past our legacy of suspicion!

Chintan interacting with students on peace building 

How has the new media contributed to peacebuilding?

Oh yes! Definitely! It’s thanks to Facebook and Twitter that thousands of young Indians and Pakistanis have got the opportunity to interact with each other without the rigmarole of applying for a visa and, if they are lucky, getting one. These are rich conversations. Young people are not talking only about India and Pakistan. They are talking about combating gender-based violence, improving education, protesting against human rights abuses, making music, conserving heritage, or even just movies and television shows they like watching. These conversations show us how shallow our stereotypes are, how urgently we need to embrace each other, say sorry, and commit ourselves to each other’s well-being. 

हिंदुस्तान, पाकिस्तान और फ़िल्मिस्तान

Dear Sehr,

How have you been? Hope doing well. I am missing our conversations and I know that you must be missing them too. We have tried out best to make up for the lost time, however technology has betrayed us. Still, we must keep connecting, keep talking and sharing. This flow of conversations must never stop, whatever be the hurdles. I have been thinking of you for quite some time now. Especially when you tell me about the load shedding problem in Larkana and the infrequency of electricity. 12 years back we faced a similar situation in Gujarat. Electricity problems galore, especially during the summers - we used to count hours when we had electricity. But things changed for the positive after 2001 - after which we have not faced much of an electricity issue. In fact, today Gujarat is credited as the only state in India where even remote villages get 24*7 electricity facility. Hope this becomes true for India and Pakistan soon.

The past month has not been quite well - with all kinds of horrible news surrounding us. First there was the stoning of a lady near the premises of the Lahore high court (supposed to be an honour killing though I do not know what kind of honour is attached with such an act, our notions of honour have become so petty that even God must be feeling ashamed of us). Then in India we had the Badaun rape case in which two young Dalit (lower caste) girls were raped and then hanged from a tree. If this was not enough, in the recent weeks there has been news of other rape cases emerging from media reports. A tragedy also struck students from an engineering college in Hyderabad while they were on a study tour in Mandi (Himachal Pradesh). They were washed away in the river waters of Beas as they were clicking photographs, as water from the dam was released without any precautionary warning. I also heard about two back to back terror attacks at the Karachi airport and watched news about in dismay and horror. It has been learnt that the TTP (Tehrik-e-Taliban: Pakistan) has claimed responsibility for the attacks. It is in this connection I remember asking you about the spread and influence of Taliban and you had told me that they have been causing mayhem in Karachi. So you now know that the week has not been good as far as news and reports from the media are concerned. It is indeed gloomy. Yesterday while messaging you on Whatsapp, I saw your status message and felt that it was very telling and poignant. It read like this:

"I declare myself a corpse for not being able to to anything for this dying nation"
It immediately struck me and I realised that may be you have written this in the context of the current trend of events taking place in Pakistan. As young people, we feel for what is going on in our respective countries and we desire to do something to improve the situation. But alas, at times we feel very desperate and despondent and give up because we see no hope around. I think the situation of people on both sides is the same in this regard. We say we have much in common, but I do not like the fact that we have such negative things in common.

The only ray of hope that helped me stay bright and cheerful this week (and reinforce my belief in the goodness of humanity) was a film that I saw. Its called "Filmistan" and trust me I missed you so much while I was watching the film. I just wished if you were with me - what a treat it could have been. Watching a film on India and Pakistan together :) I was told about the film by one of my friends, she said I should watch the film since I am working on India-Pakistan issues. I also heard a lot about the film and got to know that it has got some very positive reviews. So, I decided to watch it. But I missed you. I will tell you about the film briefly and my experience of watching it, only hoping that someday you get to seen it in Pakistan.

The film is aptly titled Filmistan - as it depicts a young man's crazy love for Hindi films. The protagonist Sunny Arora is a wannabe actor who apes almost each and every Hindi film actor. He is a struggling to make his mark felt in the Hindi film industry. In the midst of this, he lands up as an Assistant Director in a documentary being made by some American group. However, the shooting of the documentary is done in Rajasthan, in the vicinity of the border areas. Accidentally he is kidnapped by a terrorist group and held captive in a village in Pakistan. He is abducted even as the terrorist group rues the fact that they kidnapped an Indian instead of the American group. The entire setting is then shown in a Pakistani village (I am sure its a border village). He somehow through his love for films and the camera befriends the people of the village as well as Aftab - who is a Pakistani madly in love with Hindi films. Aftab is also an aspiring film-maker who dreams of making it big in Lollywood (that is what the Pakistani film industry is referred to, I believe). Both bond with each other over their love for films and become the best of friends. The terrorists however do not appreciate this and do not leave any chance of humiliating Sunny. Even in captivity, Sunny is shown to be very positive and friendly with the Pakistanis especially the children of the village. He mimics, acts, plays and has fun with them - forgetting that he is an Indian and they are his enemy. What bonds Sunny with the village and its dwellers is the common bond of films. He watches Hindi films with the villagers, enthuses them by mimicking several famous Bollywood actors and even helps Aftab learn the tricks of the trade by teaching him how to operate the camera. Their friendship blossoms over their common interest for film-making and Aftab decides to help Sunny escape from the clutches of the terrorists to the other side of the border i.e. his home in India. There are two poignant scenes in the film that touched me apart from the camaraderie of Aftab and Sunny ( they are like us, like Nidhi and Sehr and the others in our group).

In one scene, as Sunny lands in Pakistan (a fact of which he is unaware until told), he says that since the food, clothing, people and surroundings looked so similar to him, he could not recognize that he was in Pakistan. In another scene, after being short by a terrorist, Sunny is treated by the local hakim with whom he recounts his grandfather's days in Lahore, while the hakim recounts his own days in Amritsar ... expressing their deep desire to be on the other side of the border, which of course they know is not an easy task. All they have is memories. This scene brought tears in my eyes. There are many such scenes in the movie - the message is but one. We are one, we are alike, we are brothers and sisters, why fight? why hate? I was quite intrigued by the fact that the movie has been named "Filmistan" though at the end of the movie I realised that films have been used as a metaphor for the common connections we share, the bond that keeps us together. In fact popular culture is a big force that can help shatter stereotypes and bring people closer. These days,a popular TV channel in India - Zee TV is showcasing Pakistani serials. This is the way mediums of popular culture can be used to harness proximity. I came out laughing, enjoying and also with tears in my eyes because I missed you. I couldn't see the film with you (though I hope that you get to see it in Pakistan, I know you see a lot of Hindi movies). It is so difficult for commoners like us to even imagine to cross the border without hurdles and make friends there. We are at least lucky to be part of the BPP group and interact with each other. There will be many on both sides who may be finding it difficult to visit their families and friends on the 'other' side just because a section of people wish to continue and perpetuate animosities for their own selfish purpose. Another reason why I was drawn to the movie was that it came as a very refreshing take on Indo-Pak relations. If we see most Bollywood movies show Pakistan as the villain and use anti-Pakistan sentiments to whip up nationalism and patriotism. But this one offered a different way of looking at the relationship - from a humanistic perspective, not from a state-centric one. Such movies which will contribute to building positive public opinion on both sides are extremely important. As a movie goer, I almost forgot my nationality in this tale of friendship. Isn't that amazing? I would like to know from you about Pakistani movies? Are they also anti-India?

I think films are just a one off medium to connect with people on the other side of the border and there can be many more such mediums such as - art, songs, music, and many other cultural aspects. After seeing this film I got more curious to know from you - as to what do you think of Hindi movies? Do you watch them regularly? Who are you favourite movie stars? Do your friends also watch Hindi movies? What about Pakistani movies? I am eager now to watch a Pakistani movie and I hope that you will suggest one to me. I wonder when a day will come when you can come down to Baroda and watch a Hindi movie with me and I can fly down to Larkana and watch a Pakistani movie with you!!! The end of the movie Filmistan tells me that this day is not coming soon, there is a long way to go, we have to wait till this can be realistically possible. For now I am not that hopeful. Still, films are definitely a uniting factor ... three cheers to the power of cinema on both sides.

Nidhi 

India’s election discourse disappoints: Confessions of a Voter

As I got my finger inked on April 30^th in what was termed as the greatest celebration of democracy, there was an urge to reflect on the nature of political discourse amidst mind-boggling campaigning on for months together. As a voter, one is left completely disillusioned with the kind of discourse that dominated India’s general elections. Two defining characteristics were – the overdose of a ‘secular vs communal’ frame and the highly irresponsible and outrageous statements dished by political contenders across party lines. Is this what people of the world’s largest democracy should expect from their political class? If this were to continue (and it is more than likely) where is our democratic discourse headed to?

An analysis of the media discourse during the elections points towards an over-emphasis on the secular vs communal debate. Media and political pundits decried the communal nature of the campaign and even expressed unwarranted fears towards takeover by a communal political agenda. Media especially indulged in much fear mongering especially over the ‘Idea of India’ which was supposedly under threat. This has persisted in the post-election scenario as well with liberal sceptics mourning the thumping majority won by the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) expressing doubts over the unprecedented and clear mandate given by the people of India. It is this ‘secular vs communal’ dichotomy that eventually became the pulse of the election, leaving no space for a fresh electoral pitch.

Surprising enough that even after six decades of independence, the election discourse continued to digress from people’s issues and turned out to be more regressive than ever before. To say that the nature of the current discourse was rhetorical and vitriolic would not amount to exaggeration. Unfortunately, aside all the big expectations of “acche din aane wale hain”; our political class actually reduced elections to a mere verbal duel where all you do is outwit the other until the next sound byte/TV appearance. With each passing day as the elections unfolded – a new allegation, a new set of outlandish statements and a new controversy emerged – enough to deflect attention from grave issues that the country faces. Certainly no election seems like one if the basic issues of ‘bijli’ (electricity), ‘sadak’ (roads), ‘paani’ (water) are not addressed. In fact, these promises continue to hang around every time; leaving the discourse insipid and utterly lacking in fresh ideas. Certainly, democracy can offer more than the usual promises and mudslinging politics. The election discourse this time around was not about people’s expectations; it was what the political class wanted to hear and speak. Although allegations, character assassination, slander are routinely a part of election debates; but the denigration of debate that this election witnessed leaves one amazed.

If democracy is about freedom and rights, then it has to equally embody ‘tolerance’ and ‘responsiveness’. By these yardsticks candidates have already failed the democratic test. Sample these statements made by prominent leaders/candidates:

“Critics of BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi should be sent to Pakistan” – Giriraj Singh, Bhartiya Janta Party.

"Vote for the clock (NCP symbol) there (in Satara) and come back to vote for the clock here as well." – NCP Chief Sharad Pawar asking his party workers to take advantage of the multi-phase polling in the state by voting twice.

“Muslims, not Hindus, won Kargil for India” – Azam Khan of the Samajwadi party.

“BJP engages in zeher ki kheti” – Congress President Sonia Gandhi.

"I promise you in 21st Century Narendra Modi will never become the Prime Minister of the country.... But if he wants to distribute tea here, we will find a place for him," – Mani Shankar Aiyar, Congress leader.

While these and many other such statements are reflective of an erosion of political debate, they are also indicative of the hyperbole that Indian politicians indulge in. So we have rounds of taking a dig at each other resulting into a new vocabulary for Indian politics – ‘Jijaji model’ (referring to Robert Vadra), ‘Chai wala’ and ‘Butcher’ (referring to Narendra Modi), ‘Helicopter Democracy’ (as coined by Arvind Kejriwal) to name a few (India’s Politicians Trash-Talk Their Rivals, The Wall Street Journal – April 29). While there have been terms such as ‘khooni panja’ and ‘maut ka saudagar’ used in earlier electoral references, the ‘tamasha’ was more evident this time with particular emphasis on “who said what to whom”. Such a jarring campaign did not allow voters to be reflective about the quality of the democratic discourse as there was a possibility of getting carried away by the hype and hoopla generated by political gimmickry and PR machinery at full play.

While there are the positives about voter awareness campaigns, surge in voter percentages and increased political participation, where is the articulation on policy matters; conspicuous by its absence in both political and media discourse? Surely, a vast country like India is bothered about issues beyond corruption and communalism. It is worried about unemployment, poverty, education, energy, health, technology, economy etc. While every political party claimed to talk of development and kept their policy visions restricted to manifestos, all we saw in the public domain were personalized attacks and a personality centric election discourse – quite opposed to being people centric. All this election offered us were ‘dichotomous choices’ – a discourse seeped into ‘binaries’ which signified that while “I do not care whether I am good, but the ‘other’ is bad”. This is an unhealthy trend in a democracy.

While there is no harm in debating “who will win” and “how” but isn’t it more important to deliberate what a win would mean for the future course of the country. Should we allow ourselves to be fooled by petty issues and still believe in the festive spirit of democracy? Are we out there to enjoy or rather hold our political representatives responsible for their utter insensitive speak? Since, the discourse stooped to abysmally low levels, how much faith could the already disillusioned voter keep? To one’s total amazement the Election Commission (the body responsible for conducting and monitoring India’s elections) stood mute with power only to reprimand, ban and the revoke the same ban on candidates who openly flouted every model code of conduct laid down by the EC. This does not send a serious message to candidates offending the sensibilities of voters by their irresponsible conduct.

For once, the illusion that the present elections were more about people than power has proved to be exactly that – an illusion, courtesy the election discourse! When candidates reek of non-accountability and brazenness even before elections, certainly the post-election scenario does not look hopeful. Whoever says that this was a watershed election for India (as the results do convey now), should have a look at the election discourse – for what it conveys is quite the opposite. Seems we have missed the bus again!

Published on Canary Trap (May 24, 2014) http://www.canarytrap.in/2014/05/24/indias-election-discourse-disappoints-confessions-of-a-voter/

Moral undertones in Mandate 2014 – Time for some ‘moral’ politics?

Since, in the month of May our discussion themes were centered around Education, Economy and Politics ... I have decided to share two articles of mine published on Canary Trap ... based on Elections 2014. Till around 20th May, Indian Elections were the buzzword all over and I hope these articles will offer some insights into the ways in which Indian Politics operates.

The most prominent reinforcement about politics is that it is a dirty, corrupt, shrewd and notorious game of power. All possible negative connotations are attached to politics and rightly so. Thinking about politics, we obviously understand it to be negative and undesirable - all about selfish interests of those occupying power positions. Politics is something we are all taught to detest - not just politics practiced in the form of "5 yearly" elections, but politics at the workplace, in the family (yes the personal is political too!) or politics of any kind, anywhere. We do not identify ourselves as 'political' despite the fact that all of us strive for some kind of interests or goals to be achieved. We desire to be seen as 'apolitical', and thereby 'moral'. Thus, you cannot be moral if you are into politics. The evident dichotomy between 'politics' and 'morality' is what makes politics a despicable object. Morality is not supposed to be a part of politics - because politics is a far cry from the moral, the good, the valuable, the just. In fact, what politics and morality represent are binaries; the two cannot co-exist, nor reconcile. That is why the 'good' are never into politics and those who are in politics can never be 'good'.

Despite this glaring dichotomy, India’s Mandate 2014 has infused morality into the political discourse. While Machiavelli and Chanakya prescribed to realpolitik, our netas seem to be taking the moral high ground in this election campaign. So, is politics devoid of any kind of morality or does infusing morality into politics signify a highly 'political' act? The answer lies in the way morality has been invoked (or rather manipulated) in the election discourse of 2014. Each and every campaign has attempted to address the moral aspirations of people. Indians, anyhow have always lamented the lack of morality in politics (If only netas were honest and upright, where would we find someone like Gandhiji and Sardar Patel today? Or these netas have no morals to claim of - such statements are common parlance). 

Take Rahul Gandhi for example. He seeks votes in the name of 'sacrifice' (moral undertone) by his 'papa' and 'dadi' for the sake of the country. The other plank employed for votes is a pro-poor one (borrowing from Indira Gandhi's famous"Garibi hatao" pitch). So you should vote for Rahul because he is pro-poor, pro-women empowerment and hence moral. He forgets that his party lacks any kind of vision in terms of policy and governance and is riddled with accusations of scams. According to Rahul, an immoral, corrupt and divisive BJP led by Narendra Modi is a moral threat to the unity, integrity and progress of India. So a vote for Rahul should be propelled by one’s sense of morality (backed by the morality of brand Gandhi - so what if the brand itself is a falsely created one!!!). In this context, the moral undertones of the Congress party’s election campaign are for all to notice – the use of children as the face of the campaign advertisements, with an appeal directed to safeguard the future of the country and a vote for the interests of the next generation - reeks of a heavy and unmissable moral appeal.

On the other hand, the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi has been projected and his image built as a moral saviour of sorts for Indian politics. Modi has repeatedly attacked the Congress on the basis of their immorality in public life (namely corruption) and a mute Prime Minister remote controlled by a lady of Italian origin (how immoral to be governed by a lady of foreign origin - who still cannot speak proper Hindi!!!). He is also seen claiming a moral copyright over the Gujarat model of development (in his interviews he repeatedly emphasizes on "Mera Gujarat", he also addresses fellow Indians as “Mere sava sau crore Bharatvasi”). He claims to morally redeem the electorate from the tyranny of the ‘family’ (Maa and Beta). Congress, however questions these moral claims and calls Modi a 'feku' (i.e. someone who exaggerates too much) and even questions his ability to take care of the country when he deserted his own wife (another moral undertone - in tune with the women empowerment theme). The Congress campaign portrayed Modi as a demon; instilling fear among the minority community with its prediction about riots, communal violence and a second partition if Modi gains power (supposedly moral because the unity of the country is at stake and only the Congress can save it from communal forces). To counter this, Modi uses the Maa-Beta jibe to reiterate the moral degradation that Congress has imposed upon the country. So, while ‘maa’ Sonia is only bothered about ‘beta’ Rahul and would happily sacrifice the country for him, Modi claims that he is here to work for the country minus the extra baggage of family responsibilities. (“Acche din aane wale hain” – This tagline of the BJP’s campaign speaks for the moral redemption that it aims to achieve or at least has promised it will achieve for the people of this country). 

The third player in this game (if at all it is considered as a contender) - the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) cannot survive without claiming moral superiority. The punch line for the AAP's campaign is - We are the best, the rest are bad/immoral. AAP has successfully projected itself as the torchbearer of morality based politics and this has attracted young first-time voters to the party who have pinned their moral hopes on it. Without the morality plank being invoked (both in Delhi and now), the AAP campaign would lose its sheen. The pitch on which AAP has based its campaign is that people are fed up of the two morally corrupt and bankrupt parties and AAP offers a way in which morality and goodness can be brought back to Indian politics. The last player in this game, the so called third front with as many leaders as fronts, claims moral high-ground by portraying itself as the only non-Congress (non-corrupt), non-BJP (secular) option available to people at this point of time. Disregarding the infighting and divisive claims to leadership the third front presents itself as a moral and credible option to an electorate disillusioned with mainstream politics.

All said and done, this has left the junta perpetually and morally confused as to who is the best ‘moral’ choice available to them, with each claiming moral superiority over the 'other'. Are such moral claims of any use when it is quite a brazen practice to abandon morality after elections and resort to a full play of power politics? Why then deceive people by making unnecessary and exaggerated moral claims? Moral one-upmanship will definitely be abandoned once the claim to power is manifested on May 16. The moral undertones employed in this campaign come out as utterly farcical because morality is a relative concept and there is no yardstick for judging the same. Also every definition of morality is dependent on that of the 'other'. There are no independent claims to 'morality'. For instance mudslinging, character assignation and digging into each other's personal life for the benefit of political gains is surely not moral. So, while moral claims do appear to be good on the surface, all they do is divert attention from people's issues that an election discourse is supposed to address. 

We are certainly not going to see a return of morality into politics, not anytime in the near future ... till then we can wonder as to where did all the moral overdose come from; how and where did morality disappear from the political discourse/action of the day? Or was it never meant for politics? I remain morally and politically disillusioned by all accounts as Indian politics hits an all-time ‘moral’ low!

Published on Canary Trap http://www.canarytrap.in/2014/05/10/moral-undertones-in-mandate-2014-time-for-some-moral-politics/ (May 10, 2014).