censorship is valid in India. many publications have faced the music- books, plays, movies, blogs and television programmes. as India changes and we become more sensitive to the concerns of different sections of society, all forms of expression will come under increased scrutiny.
one will find it almost impossible to air views on social and cultural issues. the thin line between what is right and wrong will start overlapping under the pressure of interest groups. take 'lajja' for example. if an author wants to put light on the atrocities indulged in by a particular section in society it could be construed as being anti-religion and banned. same is the case with 'final solution' which would be seen as painting the majority community with the communal brush and thus appropriate for ban.
what seems to be the problem is the lack of acceptance of criticism by the individuals in society. every act, every belief and every individual should come under spotlight. it is only through a process of questioning and change will the individual, society and nation progress. what is accepted as right and ultimate has to pass the test of time and if found wanting must be replaced by new ideas and beliefs. this is one lesson we can see from the history of human civilization.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Pressing problem
Emraan Hashmi is in the news- for a change, not for his mouth smacking reason. his allegation that a housing society has refused to give a noc as he was a muslim has set off a debate. it is common knowledge in our country, where from governments to schools and colleges there is a preference for individuals from one community over others, this malice would be reflected in another important aspect of our society- housing communities. the ghetto mentality based on safety in numbers is seen everywhere among all, poor and rich alike.
The Emraan case is spiraling out of control. now there is a fir against both Emraan and Mahesh Bhatt for trying to incite communal passions and thus divide society. some celebrities are already taking sides and based on their personal experiences supporting or criticising Emraan. The larger issue of discrimination on the basis of community affiliation is a serious one that should not be brushed under the carpet. government can do so much, it is up to us to solve the problem. a solution is not simple- a law to punish the guilty for violating the constitution right to reside anywhere in the country and right to equality is only the beginning. each housing society should reflect the diversity that is present in India and not become ghettos for exclusive living.
The Emraan case is spiraling out of control. now there is a fir against both Emraan and Mahesh Bhatt for trying to incite communal passions and thus divide society. some celebrities are already taking sides and based on their personal experiences supporting or criticising Emraan. The larger issue of discrimination on the basis of community affiliation is a serious one that should not be brushed under the carpet. government can do so much, it is up to us to solve the problem. a solution is not simple- a law to punish the guilty for violating the constitution right to reside anywhere in the country and right to equality is only the beginning. each housing society should reflect the diversity that is present in India and not become ghettos for exclusive living.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Indo-US bonhomie
the row over the signing of the deal between India and US on weapon sales with a clause allowing US to inspect the weapons and bases where they will be stored is being covered by the media extensively. the opposition in the parliament has criticized the government for compromising the sovereignty of the country in a hurry to get close to US. has the media been neutral or sided with those opposed to this deal? unlike the previous civil nuclear deal, where the English media supported the stance of the government, there is a bit of skepticism this time around. the issue is whether india has given up too much for too little in return?
the fact that india needs hi-tech weapons for a conventional edge in the sub-continent is obvious. india's most trusted supplier Russia provides most of our present requirements. the fact that we get their latest weapons at reasonable rates and that too at more or less our terms is an important consideration. but of late, india is feeling the strain of depending on one supplier for all its requirements. it is time to spread the net wider and have access to the best weapons money can buy. it is time to be pragmatic and accept the reality that we live in a unipolar world and the best defense technology comes from US.
the fact that india needs hi-tech weapons for a conventional edge in the sub-continent is obvious. india's most trusted supplier Russia provides most of our present requirements. the fact that we get their latest weapons at reasonable rates and that too at more or less our terms is an important consideration. but of late, india is feeling the strain of depending on one supplier for all its requirements. it is time to spread the net wider and have access to the best weapons money can buy. it is time to be pragmatic and accept the reality that we live in a unipolar world and the best defense technology comes from US.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
googled again
Arrogance is the outcome of monopoly. when a company gets into a position from where competitors dont matter, one can be sure that you have a recipe for disaster. google is trying to put together an OS to take on the market leader microsoft (windows OS). Crome OS will debut next year. it is time that people had a choice.
the market leader has been charged many a times with unfair trade practices with an eye on the entire market. in the early 90s apple computers had gone to court alleging that microsoft had stolen its idea for a graphic interface operating system. fortunately, apple lost the case as it opened up the development of this sector to all. the european commission has fined microsoft a few billion for bundling its software for the european market. unless exemplary punishments are meted out the company will continue its practice of driving out competition. over the last two decades it has convinced itself that it is immune to ethical and legal charges.
the bid by google to dent the market share of ms is a much need respite in the interest of consumers. consumer choice is the basis for innovations, economy and good quality and service. the arrogant response by ms to google's effort at chrome os is but one more nail in its coffin. monopoly is bad and it should give way to genuine competition that benefits the society at large.
the market leader has been charged many a times with unfair trade practices with an eye on the entire market. in the early 90s apple computers had gone to court alleging that microsoft had stolen its idea for a graphic interface operating system. fortunately, apple lost the case as it opened up the development of this sector to all. the european commission has fined microsoft a few billion for bundling its software for the european market. unless exemplary punishments are meted out the company will continue its practice of driving out competition. over the last two decades it has convinced itself that it is immune to ethical and legal charges.
the bid by google to dent the market share of ms is a much need respite in the interest of consumers. consumer choice is the basis for innovations, economy and good quality and service. the arrogant response by ms to google's effort at chrome os is but one more nail in its coffin. monopoly is bad and it should give way to genuine competition that benefits the society at large.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
objectivity vs dialogue
just finished going through a study about the effectiveness of objective reporting versus dialogical presentation of news and issues. in the modern context, objectivity was considered to be the cornerstone of journalistic reporting. but in the present post-modern scenario, it has given way to a dialogical presentation, where the truth is subjective and it is up to the viewers to figure it out through the process of debate and discussion. Both forms have their advantages.
objective in reporting is important to provide facts. but facts by themselves dont always make sense. the complex nature of the world, its politics and so on require the intervention of many opinion leaders to contextualize the facts and allow for it to be of practical use to the masses. ultimately, facts are floating all around but how to understand them is the biggest challenge for us today. media, therefore, has an important role to play, more than ever before. the relevance of news media will be gauged from the utility of what it churns out rather than whether it is objective or not.
objective in reporting is important to provide facts. but facts by themselves dont always make sense. the complex nature of the world, its politics and so on require the intervention of many opinion leaders to contextualize the facts and allow for it to be of practical use to the masses. ultimately, facts are floating all around but how to understand them is the biggest challenge for us today. media, therefore, has an important role to play, more than ever before. the relevance of news media will be gauged from the utility of what it churns out rather than whether it is objective or not.
In contempt
there is a long running debate on the powers of the courts in India with reference to contempt. in a democracy, the courts, like all other institutions should be scrutinized and its working transparent. the decisions of the courts should be open to criticism and investigation of the process leading up to the decision must be allowed. the law and convention force the media to treat the courts as holy cows.
what is the basis for opening up the courts to pubic criticism? courts perform a vital function in society. there is an assumption that it does it objectively and dispassionately (the assumption must give way to certainity). people will have more trust in courts if they are willing to work in the open and accept responsibility for their actions. the credibility of the judicial system in the country will rest on the acceptance of the same principles that govern other democratic institutions and the sooner the courts acknowledge it the better. nobody will deliberately bring down the institution but any scrutiny will in turn go a long way in curbing corruption and the wrong image that we are left with in the absence of access to facts. the previous government was about to initiate steps to revamp the judiciary. it is time for the government to act in the larger interest of society.
what is the basis for opening up the courts to pubic criticism? courts perform a vital function in society. there is an assumption that it does it objectively and dispassionately (the assumption must give way to certainity). people will have more trust in courts if they are willing to work in the open and accept responsibility for their actions. the credibility of the judicial system in the country will rest on the acceptance of the same principles that govern other democratic institutions and the sooner the courts acknowledge it the better. nobody will deliberately bring down the institution but any scrutiny will in turn go a long way in curbing corruption and the wrong image that we are left with in the absence of access to facts. the previous government was about to initiate steps to revamp the judiciary. it is time for the government to act in the larger interest of society.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
in defense of media
after having gone through the assignments turned in by the final journalism students i have some thoughts to share. in any democracy the media has an important role in keeping the populace informed and the government on its toes. to do its job certain rights or freedom of the press is important. the society from time to time reviews the rights of the press, adds or punishes them for abuse. in the final analysis it is the citizens at large who gain from the concept of a free press. with all the problems and limitations of an independent and private press there can be no alternative.
the lok sabha elections 09 presented to the media its biggest opportunity to use all means to bring the incredible pictures of the biggest show on earth involving a billion people. news channels, in particular, planned out the strategies in advance. huge investments had to be made in terms of manpower and other resources. each channel had to do something more than the rivals. the government and the election commission had already put various limits on their freedom to cover the elections to the best of their abilities. when one takes in the larger picture of the entire two month period that the television news channels focused their attention on the election process, it is fair to say that they did a good job.
the media can be easily blamed for sensationalizing the controversial incidents- varun gandhi's hate speech, advani's 'weak prime minister ever' jibe and so on. but did the media create these incidents- the politicians should be blamed for them. the media, in its professional opinion felt that these issues required the importance and so harped on them. it is very easy, in retrospect, to look back and allocate blame. the 24 hour news channels are under incredible pressure and decisions are taken in a matter of seconds.
the debates featured on television news channels are doctored? just like films are edited to make it have a particular impact, television debates (when not live) are edited on the basis of certain criteria. the channel and the moderator have their bias/ideology that is furthered through the programme. in England, the press is very political- they have leanings and it is not considered wrong. we have not yet evolved to that level and that is the reason why there is a mystery and secrecy about the political affiliations of news channels.
to take or not to take political advertisements is another problematic issue facing the media. media has the right to accept or reject advertisements. now, why should it be a different proposition when it comes to political advertisements? the channels have to rely on ads to survive and give the viewers a better picture of political scene. anything is better than the state owning and running media organizations (there is no choice in this case).
the lok sabha elections 09 presented to the media its biggest opportunity to use all means to bring the incredible pictures of the biggest show on earth involving a billion people. news channels, in particular, planned out the strategies in advance. huge investments had to be made in terms of manpower and other resources. each channel had to do something more than the rivals. the government and the election commission had already put various limits on their freedom to cover the elections to the best of their abilities. when one takes in the larger picture of the entire two month period that the television news channels focused their attention on the election process, it is fair to say that they did a good job.
the media can be easily blamed for sensationalizing the controversial incidents- varun gandhi's hate speech, advani's 'weak prime minister ever' jibe and so on. but did the media create these incidents- the politicians should be blamed for them. the media, in its professional opinion felt that these issues required the importance and so harped on them. it is very easy, in retrospect, to look back and allocate blame. the 24 hour news channels are under incredible pressure and decisions are taken in a matter of seconds.
the debates featured on television news channels are doctored? just like films are edited to make it have a particular impact, television debates (when not live) are edited on the basis of certain criteria. the channel and the moderator have their bias/ideology that is furthered through the programme. in England, the press is very political- they have leanings and it is not considered wrong. we have not yet evolved to that level and that is the reason why there is a mystery and secrecy about the political affiliations of news channels.
to take or not to take political advertisements is another problematic issue facing the media. media has the right to accept or reject advertisements. now, why should it be a different proposition when it comes to political advertisements? the channels have to rely on ads to survive and give the viewers a better picture of political scene. anything is better than the state owning and running media organizations (there is no choice in this case).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)