Nation is a
delicate thing, therein lies its strength. It joins the patches of varied
lands, groups of varied people. Intellectuals have tried defining it in
earnest. Some have succeeded. Some were really intellectuals, who searched for
truth. Others were pretending to be intellectuals, their intent, to use it as a
tool to propagate their idea. Their wish to propagate their own ideas was not
driven as much by their conviction with truth being on their side, rather on
their own interests.
Truth is not the
stagnant water of a muddy pond. Truth is the running river. A running river is
certain of its existence but changes in its form. True intellect will always
search for the truth. We have, of late, started mistaking language for
intellect. It is not. A great intellect needs great language, there is no
dispute. But the vice-versa is not always true. Sometimes great language,
repetitive clichés are used to strengthen the arguments, when they were
pathetically weak and had not foot to stand on. The priesthood of an elitist
writer emerges from there.
There was
interesting speech by venerable Dr. Gopichand Narang at Jashn-e-Rekhta, the Urdu
festival on Ghalib. He spoke very eloquently how Ghalib, the great poet stood
away from other poets of his times like Daagh or Meer. It was a long, charming
speech, but the crux of it was that Ghalib did not use language as a tool to
play on the surface of the ocean, and dug deeper than the most to search the
truth. A study of Ghalib shows us some hallmarks of true intellect. One, it is
always in search, it is never wrapped in delusional sense of self-importance (Duboya mujhko hone ne, naa hota main to kya
hota- I have lost everything in cherishing myself, nothing would have been lost
if I weren’t there), it is mostly charred by the disinterest of the state,
the politicians and it knows when it depends on the powerful for survival and
is neither intimated by it nor apologetic about it and therefore open about it
(Hua hai shah kaa naukar, fire hai
itraata, vagarna Shahar mein Ghalib ki Aabru kya hai- He is now the servant to
the king and is so proud of it, otherwise what is the honour of ghalib in the
city).
We are the people
in hurry and slowly the onslaught of media on public conscience caught the
fancy of the powerful. The governments, and the politicians of Lutyen’s Delhi
understood that the people haven’t much time to ponder, and got to the people
who had the control over the space of public debate, written or otherwise, like
Newspapers, television. The journalists walked away from the Fanishvar Nath
Renu mold and moved into the large bungalows, five star parties and political lobbying. Since the
printed and television media was controlled, they weren’t much worried about
things. The world of ideas fractured and the elite, lobbyist, intellectual journalist, emerged. This is what Arnab
Goswami calls the Cabal of intellectuals and this is the cabal which runs the campaign to boycott his channel today. While in the backdrop of the affair at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, where students making anti-national speeches were arrested by the state
for, well, anti-national activities, the Channel Arnab represents, stood
largely on the side of the state, it is probably accidental or better reading
of public mind (TRP).
Other channels,
paraded intellectuals who were no more than fanatics with support of greater
language to take a contrarian or in some cases ambivalent position. The whole
debate of JNU smacks of how it offends the elitist pride and the fallout of it
is the testimony of how the rise of social media, the democratization of the
thinking space, slowly eroded into the happy priesthood of intellectual world,
with Rajdeep, Sagarika and Barkha Dutt and the cronies from political class.
The whole argument of JNU protester is flawed and one is horrified at the
notion that soon these people, after spending the most of their productive
lives under subsidized state education running well into their middle age, will
find place in the pretentious liberal intellectual space. Also that by absolute
control over the public space of debate, they will overwhelm the people with
their idea of the world, which seemingly is based less in logic, and more in
the allegiance to the political parties.
First let us look
at their arguments. It is largely flawed, and in portion moronic. They say that
India is an occupier in Kashmir. They forget that the state ceded to India in
48 under attack from Pakistan. They call from liberation of Kashmir, which is
an odd thought. Even the people who thanked them from the valley during the
protests yesterday, aren’t deluded enough to truly believe in independence, a
small land-locked space in mountains, without any help from the large countries
which surrounds it. The arguments of the protestors rests on columns of
Arundhati Roy, who is a fiction novelist. Writers seldom make great
politicians. Most of the slogan shouting, stone throwing friends which JNU
students claim to represent do not even delude themselves. For them secession
is not into Azaadi as these students want to believe, but into Pakistan, the
theocratic state, where Omar Khalid might be welcome, but not Kanhaiya Kumar or
Komal Mohite. I cannot remember and Hindu intellectual of public position and
following from the other side of the border. Even for Omar Khalid, he would do
well to remember, during partition, Jinnah had refused to accept the Muslims
from India beyond a point, citing lack of resources and those who supported
formation Pakistan had to remain stuck here (not suggesting that all Muslims
who stayed back supported Pakistan). So the world they were fighting for does
not exist, and the people they are fighting for aren’t fighting for that world
which does not exist. Second they say, India to be destroyed. The nation, they
speak about. They aren’t talking about the state, or the government. There is a
distinction here.
The Nation is a
collective formed out of the willful coming together of variety of people to be
treated as one. It is willful, it is therefore, just. There can be no debate
about it. Being the wish of people, it takes into account the larger masses
which believe in it. From there, it draws legitimacy. Once formed it is almost
religiously sacred. No questions, unless the wishes of the people changes.
Before 47, the wishes of most people did not matter, for few, who held the
power, it was with princely states. Post-independence, larger masses wanted the
nation to be a melting pot of smaller state, a large, powerful nation and thus
it became. The nation derives its power from the number which supports its
existence, takes pride in it, and wants it to exist, proper and grow. The
nation wants worshiping respect.
The state is the
structure which rules the state. It can be democratic, socialist, right and
left leaning. This is open to debate. This is again largely decided either by
military power of few of by moral support of many. In India, it was formed with
the moral support of masses. We may however, say that the preamble of the
constitution that was changed much later by congress, does not reflect the view
of the masses, but that is another debate. The state is powerful, to an extent
aloof and agnostic to the people once formed. This is in its nature and this is
how it ought to be. State protects, state serves. It cannot do either, without
being strong. It cannot be strong if it easily pays heed to a meagre dissenting
voice which tends to interrupt or insult the foundation from where it derives
power- the Nation. The nation wants trust and belief.The state wants subservience and discipline.
Third is the
Government. This is the one subject to easier change and object of most attack
and ridicule and rightly so. It represents the people who have been assigned by
the state to run the affairs, based on the authority the state derives from the
notion of a nation. It is perfectly fine to oppose, bad-mouth and criticize the
government. The government wants mandate and support.
Unfortunately, the
call in JNU seeking Balkanization of hits not at the government or the state.
It hits the nation. Since nation is formed of the wishes of larger masses of
people, it hits at its people. When it calls for a fight till India is
destroyed, it is not seeking, destroying the state. The state is democratic,
which they cite as the explanation, why their right to air outlandish notion is
sacrosanct. The state is secular, these protestors agree that they are also
secular. The state is socialist, and these students are nothing if not that. So
they are not against the state. The rants which we see in some doctored and
other un-doctored clippings do not talk about the BJP, the party in power, or
the government. So it is not about government. It attacks the nation. The
Nation is a benevolent and fragile idea and leans of state and government for
its protection. The state and the government are bound to protect the nation
for it represents the will of the people. The nation is the least transient of
the three entities. They say Go back, India. Go back to where? India is the
nation. They don’t say go back democracy, or go back BJP.
The media gets into
overdrive. These protesters speak great English. They detest anyone who
doesn’t. The media, especially television media is largely inundated by people
who went into journalism post-Emergency. They do not understand the true depths
of a vengeful state. They have not served as they term in government service,
hardship areas except for Kargil coverage of Barkha Dutt or 2002 riot coverage
of the Journalist duo, which live in poshest of the Delhi and who for some
reason in the whole history of India found only one riot worth coverage. They
are largely insulated to the people who read and watched them, simply because
there was no other way. They are even insulated from their own co-professionals
who write in Hindi and regional media, away from the limelight. They deal
everyday with threats and violence which even ends in murder, without the SC or
Press Club standing up for them. The state satraps deal with them with a very
firm, and cruel hand. Journalists are killed, burnt alive, but the parties and
lobbying continues unhindered in the capital among the elite. Then one day a scuffle
or fist-fight happens, and hell breaks loose. We have much-applauded dark TV
screen during the program of Ravish Kumar, whose idea of reporting is to begin
with the inquiry of the caste and religion of the respondent. We have outraged righteousness of elite journalists which sounds much like- how dare they touch
me? The efforts to change the narrative by replacing the nation by the state
and then the state by the government is on, with a pretense to act as if the scuffle
in Delhi is much worse than the killing of journalists, imprisoning the
opposition. Journalists used to be people like us, common people who wrote. Now
they are not. Any debate with them on social media turns into “We” against
them, ‘them’ being the unwashed masses of India. The media or the elite cabal, no longer comes
from us, not longer represents us. They don’t even understand people, at most
they even underestimates and detests their consumer, the readers, the audience,
such is their moral pretentiousness and elitism. One journalist, when
confronted by someone with no support for JNU protest, challenges people to
come for a physical fight. Thankfully he doesn’t follow through when Olympic
wrestler, Yogeshwar Dutt, and Olympian boxer, Vijendra Singh, takes a view
opposing this protest in JNU which was nothing but anti-national.
It is a high time.
The annoyance is high. It is time for our media to re-discover its mooring. It
cannot continue to play the pied piper of Hamelin and guide people like mice.
We are thinking people. Do not take your readers and audiences for granted.
Internet and social media has democratized the state. There won’t be Privy
Purse any more, and public media will not be short anymore. People will
remember the man thrown into Jail for FB comment on Karthi Chidambram, son of
erstwhile Home minister, they will remember arrest of Cartoonist, Asim Trivedi
under sedition, they will remember police action on protesting common people
who watch your channels and read your Op-eds, which left a woman dead, while
the mainstream media only made fun of Baba Ramdev who escaped in women’s
attire, and soon got busy in erecting Arvind Kejriwal as a symbol of hope, the man never went beyond the noise is besides the point. With 500 Cr of advertisement budget, does not make commercial sense for media to chase him.
People
are not stupid. They notice the desperate effort to change the narrative. They notice when you turn a call to arms into a debate, when a
battery of top lawyers turn up at the Supreme court to argue for bail of a
students. Is he the first student to be caught up by Police? Even the principle
of the college would not support the bail, for crimes much lesser, mostly
against the city administration, not even the government, or the state, let
alone the nation. Wikipedia defines journalist as “A person who collects, writes,
or distributes news or other current information.” There is a clear sense of
neutrality here. This neutrality is missing today. Christopher Essex called it
paradoxical that “scientists seek one truth but often voice many opinion; journalists
often speak of many truths while voicing a uniform opinion.” A journalist must
not judge and pre-judge. He must not judge if running the clipping about the cash
for vote will be good for the nation, state or government and he must not mix
the three up. People are watching. Their right to freedom of expression is no
lesser than yours merely because their English is poor. While it is possible
that there would be issues hitting closer to you, and you will be affected, but
then drop the charade of neutrality and instead of chest-thumping as “I am
Anti-National” on social media, makes more sense to do a disclosure on your
leaning before presenting a program, or writing and Op-ed. Why not go after the teachers and faculty which act like propagandists and ideologues and use these hapless youngsters as tools in their political designs like the one professor from Jadavpur University claiming with a stupid smile that symbols of the nation in the university will constitute infringement to the autonomy of the institute. It is a pity that teachers with such narrow understanding are teaching the impressionable minds in so-called world class universities. You may be leftist, but aren't you an Indian leftist or like an ISIS Islamist you are a part of global Jihad with no sense of nation?
You would realize
that being anti-national is not such a good thing. Nationalist people with poor
English make your TRP and help you earn your living. As an IT person, I should
never make fun of a person who wants to opt for cloud computing merely because
he cannot spell computing properly, since he is going to buy it, use it and
help me make my living. Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, and it is the
people who make the nation. It is not about being first and breaking news. It
is about being honest. When scuffle is first page new and murder is page
thirteen news, opinions are not getting doctored, people are watching you. This
is not a new thing. Even Proust would say, “ The fault I find with our
journalism is that it forces us to take an interest in some fresh triviality or
other everyday..” and that was the time before Television. Be watchful. More
than media, I would urge us to be watchful. For we own a mind, even if not that
eloquent which has the capacity to decipher the truth and let us distrust
anyone who tells us that he or she will discover our truth on our behalf. Never
surrender the reason or the right to search for your own truth.
Since there is
massive trend since the efforts by the intellectuals disenchanted by current
government to even convert a suicide into murder by citing a) freedom of speech
and dissenting ideology and b) to quote Dr. Ambedkar as founding father of
Indian constitution to substantiate imaginary accidents and imaginary
positions, I will end with a quote by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar here, which clarifies
where dissenting ideologies stop and the nationalism extends from. Dr. Ambedkar
says, “I do not want that our loyalty as Indians should be in the slightest
way affected by any competitive loyalty whether that loyalty arises out of our
religion, out of our culture or out of our language. I want all people to be
Indians first, Indian last and nothing else but Indians.” Our media, intellectuals and strangely, the leftists, love quoting Ambedkar, hope they agree with him. The nation is not about OP Sharma, the masculine fighter of BJP only to countered by Shiv Aroor of India Today, it is about the poor farmer who faces famines after sixty years of supposedly pro-poor, pro-farmer government, and still dreams to send his son to army, to defend not the government, or the state, but the Nation, which he bows before, muttering Vande Mataram in his parched lips.
 |
| Courtesy : Getty Image |
Comments