Rajdeep Sardesai - Why I will not speak on the Arnab-Barkha 'war'
A website rang me up
last evening asking if I would like to express an opinion on the ongoing 'war'
between Arnab Goswami and Barkha Dutt on tv and social media. I was tempted, if
only because I have a strong opinion on most things and believe silence is not
an option in the unethical times we live in. And yet, I pressed the pause
button and decided I didn't wish to speak on the issue and aggravate the
controversy. Maybe, I was influenced by the fact that both Barkha and Arnab
have been former colleagues and I have respected their work. Maybe, having been
bitten in the past, I didn't want to join the viper's den which platforms like
Twitter have been reduced to: 24 X 7 rage machines where every attempt is made
to throw darts at public figures, often under the guise of anonymity. Maybe, I
just like to see myself as a nice guy who doesn't wish to see more
unpleasantness around him.
But more likely I was
influenced by a speech I had heard that morning from the US First Lady Michelle
Obama. In a stirring address, easily the best speech at the Democratic
conclave, Michelle spoke about the poisonous hatred which the Trump campaign
had injected into the political discourse without naming the Republican
challenger once. "The hateful language we hear every day on television from
public figures does not represent the true spirit of this country. When someone
is cruel or acts like a bully, you don't stoop to their level. Our motto is:
when they go low, we go high," she told the audience. It was a message
that struck home. Michelle was referring to America, but she could just as
easily have been talking of this country.
When I wrote my book,
"2014: the election that changed India" I was often asked whether the
title was over the top. After all, could a single electoral verdict change a country
with an ancient civilisation? Two years later, we are slowly getting the
answer. An election may not have changed our lives dramatically -- we still
have to deal with red tapism, petty corruption, the Ganga is still polluted,
farmers still commit suicide, we face power cuts, rising vegetable prices,
potholed roads and traffic jams are a monsoon menace -- but an election result
can empower those who are on the winning side.
So, suddenly we have cow
vigilante groups who feel they can get away with their violent bullying,
love
jehad mobs who claim to be waging a moral crusade against inter religious
marriages, forcible ghar wapsi campaigns that are gathering momentum, and MPs
who will extol the virtues of a Godse over Gandhi. Oh yes, we also have the crazies
on the 'other side' too: those who unleash terror against innocent citizens in
the name of Islam, clerics who will refuse to reform antiquated laws, imams who
engage in fatwa politics. The 'crazies' were always there and remain a
permanent danger; it's the rise of the newly minted hate warriors and their
influential endorsers who should trouble us now. Hate when aligned to power is
a dangerous combination. It signals the move of the fringe to the mainstream,
legitimising a new vocabulary of bigotry.
What is just as
dangerous is the creeping polarisation has now moved from the street to the
studio as reflected in the 'us' versus 'them' media narrative being pushed by
the foot-soldiers of the ruling establishment. You are either a desh bhakt or a
pseudo liberal, a nationalist or an anti national depending on your reportage,
if not ideology. If you talk of the pain of two wasted generations of Kashmiri
youth living under a draconian law like AFSPA, then you are an anti national,
pseudo liberal. If you scream about the agony of Kashmiri Pandits becoming
refugees in their own country, then you are a 'nationalist' and a patriot. If
you speak of both tragedies, then you are, as some of us are lampooned, a
'monkey balancer'. If you report on the travails of our soldiers facing stones
in Kashmir and land mines in Naxal areas, you are a desh bhakt and nationalist;
if you expose the human right violations in the valley or tribal India, you are
anti national. If you report on both, you are, well, considered a 'monkey balancer'.
Well, here is my take:
journalism is actually often about being a 'monkey balancer', of diligently
seeking the truth rather than mindlessly scouring for TRPs, of making sense
rather than seeking sensation, of informing the viewer rather than titillating him.
I don't wish to be a TRP crusader and posterboy of tabloid journalism who
seamlessly becomes a right wing troll by passing judgement and abusing all
those who express alternate opinions. Neither do I claim to be standing on the
pulpit of self righteousness by asserting moral 'superiority' over anyone else.
I wish to be a journalist who looks for nuance instead of noise, complexity
instead of chaos, samvad (dialogue) instead of rhetoric. I do not wish to take
sides but will take a stand: a stand that is based on a respect for rule of law
and individual liberties, one that respects the state but will retain the right
to question its government. If that makes me a dinosaur in the prevailing media
eco system or even anti-national in the eyes of flag-waving 'nation first'
rabble rousers, then so be it.
And yes, like Michelle
Obama, I do seek hope instead of despair, hope of a better, more compassionate,
less hateful India. Which is why we must as journalists report the good, the
bad and the ugly: report on the violence in Kashmir but also on the Kashmiri
Muslims who helped perform the last rites of their Pandit neighbour despite a
curfew; report on Dalits who were beaten for skinning a dead cow but also on
the Dalits who had the guts to throw a cow carcass in front of a collector's
office in protest.
As I said at the
outset, this blog is not about celebrity anchors and our bloated egos: we make
the noise, but actually it's hundreds of hard working reporters who make the
news by telling stories from across India without fuss or fanfare. The
salvation of our tattered profession lies in their courage and commitment to
the news and their desire not to be swept away by the toxic surround sound.
It's a bit like our country: remember those who shout and rage on social media
and in tv studios only seek to divide us, it's the silent majority of Indians
who keep us united. Thank god for that!
Post-script: after
reading my blog, an academic friend whose opinion I value greatly had this to
say: for once i disagree with you. it is not an arnab- barkha war. it is not
even about TRP and low journalism. It is about an anchor who lies, who sets
vigilante mobs on people, surely it is the job of journalism to call this
out....yes aim high, don't stoop low. not naming an evil for what he is is,
avoiding the issue.
My response to him was: I don't wish to fight noise with more noise, but noise with truth. And the truth is, Arnab was a colleague. Decency doesn't allow me to say more, but I will say this: by calling for media 'gags' and seeking vigilante justice against dissenting voices, Arnab has let down the Indian media and chipped away at its freedoms. That he has done this with no hint of self doubt is both tragic and diabolical. But as an optimist, I remain hopeful that the dark storms will pass and the sunshine of good sense will break through. India and the Indian media is much bigger than any individual's hate filled hubris.
NB: Well written, Rajdeeep. My only comment is: "But you have indeed spoken" - DS
see also
Six Outrageous Things BJP Leaders Have Said About Dadri Murder
NAUJAWAN BHARAT SABHA on attempts of 'Sangh Parivar' to foment communal tension in Delhi / Beef murder bid to stir hatred ahead of polls? / SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN: The fight is now over your right to not be killed for what you eat
NAUJAWAN BHARAT SABHA on attempts of 'Sangh Parivar' to foment communal tension in Delhi / Beef murder bid to stir hatred ahead of polls? / SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN: The fight is now over your right to not be killed for what you eat
The Broken Middle - my essay on the 30th anniversary of 1984
The Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: Inquiry Commission Report (1969)
The Abolition of truth
RSS tradition of manufacturing facts to suit their ideology
The Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi: Inquiry Commission Report (1969)
The Abolition of truth
RSS tradition of manufacturing facts to suit their ideology
