Indian Media

It has been quite a while since I stopped to talk about the English news channels in India. It's simply too vexing, and at times, depressing. I mostly try to avoid reading or watching the stupid things they put out. But sometimes, somethings catch your attention. This is when you wonder if they are even trying to hide their supposedly hidden agendas. Phrases like, "I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we have to take a break at this point, we'll be back soon" have betrayed where their loyalties lie -- to the sponsors and the shareholders, and simply, to profit. Soon they'll be saying, "I'm sure you have something important to say, but we need to sell it midway and make our millions, so hold your thoughts."

Anyway, today I ran into this blogpost written by an NDTV reporter. The post and the comments (which I believe were heavily 'moderated') just lend more credence to the disillusionment one has with the idea of India:

If ever there was a ripe case for a well-planned and executed military operation, here it was in Sri Lanka. President Mahinda Rajapakse and his team went about prosecuting what, by all accounts, was a legitimate war. (emphasis mine)

PS. I watch BBC for about 3 hours everyday. I have for the last 6 years. The only time pressure they have come under is with regard to their scheduled programming.

Arundhati Roy's Awakening

Arundhati Roy is one of the most popular "leftist intellectuals" in India, known for her take on several issues including globalization, imperialism, and media.  Given this image, many Tamil activists hoped that she would join their cause in protesting against the GOSL and India. They probably didn't wish for a dramatic demonstration that she staged in the Narmada Dam site, but a 200 word op-ed  or a flashy statement at the end of her lucrative book readings. To get some attention from the English press in India, and possibly English television. But her indifference and silence about the Sri Lankan Tamil issue may have raised doubts about her intellectual depth and integrity even among her fans.

Some Tamil intellectuals -- who were left leaning themselves -- were not surprised, though. Some even likened her to 'Hindu' Ram. Thamizhavan, wrote a very insightful article about a month ago. He identifies the likes of Roy as elite, "half baked, cosmopolitan intellectuals" who pick up issues that "matter" in order to be recognized as progressive thinkers. He says, "talking extensively about Palestine while not blurting a word about Eelam is an important characteristic of this band." Thamizhavan expressed his views in regards to Chomsky's interview to Sri Lanka Guardian (SLG). He argues that politically regressive media houses like The Hindu, SLG, and top "cadres" of the communist parties in India try to "monoplize Chomsky and his ideas" to lend credibility to their politics.

My impression of Roy has always been that of a lazy thinker who picks up pointers from Noam Chomsky and other serious intellectuals. She frames templates based on Chomsky's writings and moulds her views on several issues with them; quite successfully, I must add.

The SL conflict, if she ever thought about it, must have put her in a tight spot, though. In the SLG  interview, Chomsky confesses that he is not well-informed on the ethnic conflict. (Why? We don't know.) So Roy probably didn't know what to say with nobody to plagiarize ideas from. She must have wondered if there is any scope to personalize this issue; something that would also appeal to the smug crowd that quotes her writings and gathers for her speeches. Or she felt that her histrionics can never match the self-immolations Tamil Nadu has seen -- and India hasn't -- the last few months.

With everything pretty much done and dusted with, Roy has stepped into the arena with her article in The Guardian. This article may not do any good to Sri Lankan Tamils, but at least now she cannot be accused of saying nothing about the genocide. The most infuriating aspect about it is that she insults our intelligence right in the first line and maintains that intent throughout:

The horror that is unfolding in Sri Lanka becomes possible because of the silence that surrounds it. There is almost no reporting in the mainstream Indian media - or indeed in the international press - about what is happening there. Why this should be so is a matter of serious concern.

You wonder whether she's talking to herself? Not so. For she absolves herself from the sinful crowd with this indisputable explanation:

Several of us - including myself - who should have spoken out much earlier have not done so, simply because of a lack of information about the war.

She has so much conviction in her defence that she presents the case like a reporter on field would; "breaking the news to the world." The article is also written with a matter-of-fact tone. Quite unlike her flowery expositions about 9/11 or Kashmir. "The few eyewitness reports that have come out are descriptions of a nightmare from hell," (emphasis mine) seems to be the best she could cook. Maybe she didn't realize there's no hurry to turn the article in. After all, she had the patience and intellectual commitment to gathering information for 30 years before she "broke her silence." Hope nobody breaks her jaw for the puerile recital of old facts.

Podcast: Violence, Disenfranchisement and Statehood

Download mp3; download mp3 (Odeo Link)

1'-5': Protests in distant lands -- far from where it may actually have an "effect".
5'-12': An individual's interaction with the state; role of violence in maintaining a statehood.
12'-14': Nationalist arrogance
14'-19': Why should the systemically marginalized and the oppressed live by a state's laws?
19'-23': Periyar and Tagore on "India" the nation.
23'-28': Constructing nationalist loyalties; erosion of leftist perspective in mainstream media. (pothu putthi - common/mainstream sensibility.)
28'-35': Muthukumar's self-immolation; Tamil Nadu's indifference to protests and the plight of Sri Lankan Tamils.

Related blog entries: நாகார்ஜுனன்; ஜமாலன்; முத்துக்குமாரின் கடிதம்.