Media – SAWM Sisters

Salman Rushdie’s ‘Victory City’: A Lesson In Historiography Told Through A Joke?

Nishtha Gautam — Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:24:21 +0000

This story first appeared in TheQuint

All myths of origin are suspect, and those who believe them to be the Truth are nothing but naive, to put it mildly.

Salman Rushdie’s Victory City is more than a novel.

It is a life-affirming totem. It is the triumph of the storyteller: Rushdie himself and all others who have defied or succumbed to death to serve the cause of storytelling.

Victory City has come with a chip on its shoulder—Rushdie’s first novel after a near-fatal stabbing in a New York event. It will be an arduous task to delink the symbolism of publishing this novel from its literary merit. The book, let this be recorded, stands tall as one of Rushdie’s finest works.

The Plot of Victory City: Is Salman Rushdie Being Modest?

The story of Victory City is quintessentially Rushdiesque—of the rise and fall of empires, families, and demigods. Rushdie is inarguably the Homer, the Valmiki, the Vyas of our times, bringing worlds alive through his words. There is a creator-writer Pampa Kampana whom Rushdie lends his mantle for plot purposes.

The empire of ‘Bisnaga’—a corruption of Vijaynagar is willed into existence by Pampa Kampana, “a vessel for Goddess Parvati” through two brothers Hukka and Bukka. The story of this empire’s rise and fall is what occupies the space of 340 pages—it starts with a funeral pyre and ends with one, too. Pampa Kampana survives both for she is the muse, the mother, the poet, the prophet whose account of the empire’s ‘life’ and ‘death’ called ‘Jayaparajaya’ has been “retold in plainer language by the present author, who is neither a scholar, nor a poet but merely a spinner of yarns.”

Salman Rushdie’s Meta World

Rushdie’s Victory City, thus, becomes a stellar example of his tried and tested literary genre of what Jean-François Lyotard calls ‘metanarrative’, and draws attention to the very process of authoring the novel, thereby, turning it into a ‘metafiction’. But the ‘meta’-ness of the work spreads beyond what the author claims to be doing and encourages the reader to become a participant in the world of Rushdie’s words.

Who can after all, not think about Rushdie’s own travails while reading about the fate of poets and prophets in the book? What befell Pampa Kampana is eerily identical to the recent attack on Rushdie. Or, who wouldn’t chuckle about the Hobbesian reflection of Bukka, “Looks like even the magic seeds have one rule for the rulers and another for the ruled” early on in the story? Further, “‘The day will come,’ Bukka said mutinously ‘when we will no longer allow foreigners to tell us who we are.’”

Rushdie has deftly sprinkled references to philosophical debates and current affairs throughout the book which increasingly appears to be a fable of and for our times. During Pampa Kampana’s exile in the forest, the ilk of Vidyasagar is eager to change the names of streets of Bisnaga and the “city was now under this new senate’s strict religious control, as it ‘demolished’ the philosophies of Buddhists and Jains as well as Muslims to celebrate the New Orthodoxy.”

Remember, Rushdie has been critiquing religious orthodoxies of all stripes. His criticism of the rise of the Hindu supremacists lost him many a fan in India who earlier hailed him for resisting Islamist supremacist ideas.

All About Here and Now

Past, present, and future have always coexisted in a fabulist harmony in Rushdie’s fiction. Victory City, therefore, is no exception. While the unnamed narrator’s ‘translation’ of Pampa Kampala’s epic poem moves in a linear fashion, the reader is sucked into the vortex of the ‘here and now’.

Pampa Kampana, like Ursula in Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude, is witness to the rise and fall of generations in Bisnaga. Her dealings with the Portuguese and the Chinese and many other “foreigners” make Bisnaga the empire that it was. Rushdie’s oh-so-obvious celebration of multiculturalism in the book is like a familiar meme doing rounds on the internet.

The reason is simple: his literary politics is defined by the realpolitik of his mother and the adopted countries. Since the resistance towards the ‘other’ has reached caricaturish levels in these countries, Rushdie won’t leave it alone in peace. He must insert lines such as these to define an ideal state:

“Every man may come and go and live according to his own creed. Great equity and justice is observed to all, not only by the rulers, but by the people, one to another.”

The Joke

Pampa Kampana’s ideal city, however, is a short-lived one. After all, “it is a kind of derangement in the world when a mere accusation supported by nothing feels like a guilty verdict” and this great derangement can only end in the fall of structures—State, relationships, society et al—it ostensibly tries to protect.

And with the finale, the real Rushdie reveals himself. Forever irreverent, pulling elaborate literary pranks, almost smirking at his readers’ naïveté.

The last lines of Victory City are also a historiographer’s delight:

“…How are they remembered now, these kings, these queens?

They exist now only in words.

While they lived, they were victors, or vanquished, or both.

Now they are neither

.…

They will be remembered in the way I have chosen to remember them.

…

They will mean what I wish them to mean.

…

Words are the only victors…”

All myths of origin are suspect, and those who believe them to be the Truth—including the readers of Victory City—are nothing but naive, to put it mildly.

Link to original story

আদালত ও সাংবাদিক

SAWM Team — Thu, 14 Mar 2019 06:04:35 +0000

আদালত অবমাননার দায়ে দোষী সাব্যস্ত হইলেন ভারতের উত্তর-পূর্বাঞ্চলের একটি দৈনিকের সম্পাদক ও প্রকাশক। শাস্তিস্বরূপ তাঁহাদের সারা দিন আদালতে বসিয়া থাকিতে নির্দেশ দেয় মেঘালয় হাইকোর্ট। মাথাপিছু দুই লক্ষ টাকা জরিমানা ধার্য করিয়া বলা হয়, জরিমানা দিতে না পারিলে তাঁহাদের ছয় মাসের কারাদণ্ড হইবে, এবং ‘তথাকথিত’ সংবাদপত্রটি নিষিদ্ধ হইবে। মেঘালয় হাইকোর্টের এই রায় ভারতের সাংবাদিক ও নাগরিক সমাজকে ব্যথিত এবং উদ্বিগ্ন করিতেছে। আদালত এবং বিচারব্যবস্থার প্রতি শ্রদ্ধা প্রদর্শন রাখিয়াও বলিতে হয়, সাংবাদিকদের আরও কিছু কর্তব্য রহিয়াছে। আদালতের বিচারপ্রক্রিয়া এবং ঘোষিত রায় সম্পর্কে সংবাদ প্রকাশ করা সাংবাদিকের দায়িত্ব। তাহাতে বিচিত্র মত থাকিবে, নানা প্রশ্ন উঠিবে, ইহাই প্রত্যাশিত। ‘দ্য শিলং টাইমস’ আদালতের যে রায়টি লইয়া সংবাদ প্রকাশ করিয়াছে, তাহাতে অবসরপ্রাপ্ত বিচারপতি এবং তাঁহাদের পরিবারের সদস্যদের জন্য নানা সুযোগসুবিধা দিবার নির্দেশ দিয়াছিল মেঘালয় হাইকোর্ট। এই বিষয়ে ওই পত্রিকা দুইটি সংবাদ প্রকাশ করে। অতঃপর হাইকোর্ট স্বতঃপ্রবৃত্ত হইয়া ওই কাগজের বিরুদ্ধে আদালত অবমাননার মামলা শুরু করে। সম্পাদক ও প্রকাশক নিঃশর্ত ক্ষমা চাহিলেও তাহা গৃহীত হয় নাই।

আদালতের সম্মান লঘু করিয়া দেখিবার বিষয় নহে। কিন্তু প্রশ্ন আদালতের সম্মান বিষয়ে নহে। বারংবার বিভিন্ন ক্ষেত্রে যে ভাবে সংবাদমাধ্যমের সম্মান ক্ষুণ্ণ হইতেছে, প্রশ্ন সেখানেই। একটি গণতান্ত্রিক দেশে সংবাদপত্রের স্বাধীনতার গুরুত্ব কিন্তু বিরাট। সাংবাদিকরা নির্ভয়ে, নির্দ্বিধায় বক্তব্য প্রকাশ করিতে না পারিলে তাহাতে দেশেরই ক্ষতি। কারণ জনপরিসরে আলোচিত হইবার মতো বহু প্রশ্ন তখন আড়ালে থাকিয়া যাইবে। ভারতের ইতিহাসে সংবাদমাধ্যমের স্বাধীনতাকে সুরক্ষিত করিতে বিচারব্যবস্থা বারংবার সদর্থক ভূমিকা লইয়াছে। শীর্ষ আদালতের বিভিন্ন রায় সংবাদমাধ্যমকে নির্বিঘ্নে কাজ করিবার সুযোগ দিয়াছে। কখনও মতপ্রকাশের ক্ষেত্রে সাংবাদিক সীমা লঙ্ঘন করিয়াছেন মনে করিলে আদালত সম্পাদক বা সাংবাদিককে তিরস্কার করিয়া সতর্ক করিয়াছে, কিন্তু ক্ষমা প্রার্থনা করিলেও আদালত তাহা প্রত্যাখ্যান করিয়াছে, এমন নজির বিরল। আদালত অবমাননার দায়ে সংবাদপত্র নিষিদ্ধ হইবার সম্ভাবনা উদ্বেগজনক। বিপজ্জনকও।

ক্ষমতাসীন নেতা বা বিত্তবান শিল্পপতির সহিত সাংবাদিকের সংঘাত হওয়া অপ্রত্যাশিত নহে। তাঁহারা সংবাদ নিয়ন্ত্রণ করিবার চেষ্টা করিবেন, তাহা অবাঞ্ছিত হইলেও, বিস্ময়কর নহে। সরকারের সমালোচনা বন্ধ করিতে সরকারি বিজ্ঞাপন বন্ধ করা তাহার সহজ উপায়। এই দেশে তাহার নানা নিদর্শন বিভিন্ন আমলেই দেখা গিয়াছে। সম্প্রতি কাশ্মীরের বেশ কিছু সংবাদপত্র নিজেদের প্রথম পাতা শূন্য রাখিয়া ইহার প্রতিবাদ করিয়াছে। আজ ভারতে মানহানির মামলা লড়িতেছেন বহু সাংবাদিক, সম্পাদক ও প্রকাশক। রাষ্ট্রদ্রোহিতার দায়ে কারারুদ্ধের সংখ্যাও কম নহে। সর্বোপরি, দেশে সম্প্রতি পাঁচ জন সাংবাদিক নিহত হইয়াছেন। এই কঠিন সময়ে বাক্‌স্বাধীনতার সুরক্ষা ও প্রসারের জন্য আদালতের উপর নাগরিকের নির্ভরতা বাড়িবেই। এমন সময়ে মেঘালয় হাইকোর্টের রায়টি নাগরিক উদ্বেগ তীব্রতর করিল।

source: Anandbazar

“When published, a good story – in any language – takes the form of a freely flowing river”

SAWM Team — Wed, 13 Mar 2019 06:58:23 +0000

Priyanka Dubey’s stirring acceptance speech at the Chameli Devi Award Ceremony

I thank The Media Foundation and all the jury members for finding my work worthy of this prestigious award. While standing here, I am very much aware of the magnificent and much celebrated legacy of this distinguished award and also of the remarkable body of work that all my predecessors have. This makes me feel very fortunate, full of gratitude, humbled, a little nervous and a lot more responsible.

This award is most special to me personally because it is largely the recognition of my last year’s work published in BBC’s Hindi service.

I have reported and filed in both Hindi and English languages for past 9 years and in my limited experience I often felt that a lot of extra-ordinary and important journalism happening in vernacular languages goes unnoticed just because the ‘mainstream’ opinion makers cannot read or understand these languages. So, I want to take this important opportunity to root for good journalism happening in all languages all across India.

This recognition reconfirms my already strong faith on the power of a good story. A good story – done in any language- published in any platform from any hidden corner of the world- is bound to shine. Once published, a good story almost takes the form of a powerfully flowing river which – sooner or later reaches to everyone who is seeking it and its impact. It’s bound to serve public interest.

But a good story takes a lot out of you too. Sure, it does.

I came to journalism 9 years ago with a lot of idealism and a lot of anger about multiple forms of inequalities and injustice that I saw around me while growing up. And I wanted to change things. So, I started from my home.

I was born in a small town and in a fairly conservative family which had absolutely zero background in journalism, literature or even reading of any kind. Yes, you are listening to this in 2019. And yes, nobody in my family was happy when I said that I wanted to enrol in a journalism course after passing school. I had to resist a lot and the resistance went on for days. It’s difficult for me to go into the details of this but what I can say here is that the prospects of my working odd hours, frequently traveling, going to public places like police stations and courts and meeting lot of strange men was initially very intimidating for my family. My relatives would often feed my parents that a profession which involves so much of movement of woman is disrespectful. I had to go through a long dark tunnel to free myself from the burden imposed ‘respect’ in order to find my own way. After 9 years, I think I have finally seen a bit of light but the darkness of that tunnel keeps coming back every now and then. It’s a constant struggle.

The battles I had fought on my domestic front were so difficult and hurtful to go through that finally when I stepped out – the outside world – with its all difficulty and trappings– felt easy to cope with.

Sure, Reporting was tough, writing was tougher and lonely. Last 9 years have been like a blur. But this has undoubtedly been the most gratifying journey. Because reporting constantly makes you learn and unlearn.

One such learning that I have gained is that any good story – or for that matter sustaining reporting on important subjects over the years – requires giving up a lot of your personal life. The situation becomes more challenging if you are a woman reporter.

But, on other hand, the opportunity to work on an array of urgent issues like religious intolerance, gender crimes, collapsing state health institutions, epidemic related deaths, police excesses and fake encounters, hunger, agricultural crisis and farmer suicides, mob lynchings and many, many other subjects that I have covered during past decade – has pushed me to look at the world with a more nuanced eye and a more compassionate heart.

My investigations on human trafficking, child abuse, caste based violence, rapes and rights of the marginalized have altered me deep to my bone.

While these reports have made me aware of the many blind-spots in Indian democracy, they have also made me understand two important points.

First is huge importance of sustained reporting on issues like health, farmer suicides and gender – subject which might appear mundane or old or repetitive to the quote unquote ‘mainstream Indian media’. Second is the extreme significance of always holding power to account and just standing tall in favour of pro people public intrest journalism.

As a reporter, my first and foremost commitment is to the truth, to the common people of this country and above all – to that man standing on the margins of Indian Democracy.

But this journey would not have been possible without the help, guidance and companionship of so many people because of whom I am standing here today.

My former editors – Sanjay Dubey – who trusted the reporter in me in my initial years, Nisha Susan and Vinod K Jose- who always had unflinching faith in my capabilities as a reporter.

My editors here at the BBC- a big shout to Rupa Jha who is no less than a force of nature heading all Indian Languages at BBC. Mukesh Sharma –for backing and encouraging public interest journalism throughout. Journalism which is often tedious, painstaking and time taking. And also for being the feminist editor that he is. Rajesh Priyadarshi and Rajesh Joshi- for picking up the weed from my long copies -and the brilliant vizjo team and Shadab Nazmi at BBC for their injecting life in my stories through their illustrations. Brijesh Singh, my oldest and bahut garibi ke dinon wala – dost. Prashant, Himanshuji, Divya, Sushila, all my BBC colleagues– and all my wonderful friends and family who are here today- cheering for me.

The network for women in Indian Media for providing guidance and support when I most needed it. To all my sources and to the wonderful extraordinary and generous army of regional and local reporters who have helped me through out. Without them, I would have been lost. To all the people who trusted with their stories, I am grateful.

My husband, for loving and supporting without ever keeping any conditions. My in-laws and my parents – who have endured many sufferings and made numerous sacrifices for me.

Most importantly this belongs to my unlettered mother – who taught me compassion and did everything from possible in her capacity to ensure that I can have one more hour to read.

Thank you everyone.

source: Facebook Post

Journalism and the Media’s Crisis of Credibility in an Age of Strident Nationalism

SAWM Team — Wed, 13 Mar 2019 06:31:19 +0000

For the media to play its designated role, it must be impartial and unprejudiced in coverage of news and views connected with all segments of society, says former Vice President Hamid Ansari.

Former vice-president Hamid Ansari delivered the B.G. Verghese Memorial Lecture on ‘Journalism in Times of Strident Nationalism’ on March 9. Reproduced below is the text of his speech.

This is a signal honour and I am grateful to the trustees of the Media Foundation for inviting me this evening to share my thoughts with this august audience.

Boobli George Verghese was a journalist of eminence. To his contemporaries, he was more – a concerned citizen and a man of conscience who firmly believed that journalism at its best involved ferocious scrutiny of power.

He lived and worked in post-independent India. He witnessed and at times participated in the crafting of a modern Indian state on a vision considered unique by the world – of building on the existential reality of a plural society a democratic polity with a secular state structure. He crafted a place for himself in the world of the media and also had time to reflect upon the role of the Indian media in changing times.

He was perceptive enough to observe that ‘as India’s multitudinous but hitherto dormant diversities come to life, identities are asserted and jostle for a place in the sun. Issues of majority and minority, centre and periphery, great and little traditions, rural and urban values, tradition and modernity and all of Naipaul’s million mutinies have to be negotiated and managed. This management of diversity within multiple transitions is a delicate and complex process aggravated by inexorable population growth.’

The media informs, educates even entertains. In a democracy, it plays an important role in the formation, projection and dissemination of public opinion. It is or should be a guardian of public interest, an honest witness to events, a tool to hold government accountable to the people. It is meant to be a bridge between the people and the government by facilitating dialogue for the formulation and implementation of state policies in accordance with the wishes of the people.

A free, fair, honest and objective media is a potent instrument for enhancing transparency and accountability on all sides. Freedom of the media is thus one of the most important ingredients of democracy and reflects the character of the state. For the media to play its designated role, it must be impartial and unprejudiced in coverage of news and views connected with all segments of society. It must not be subservient to vested interests or be distorted by them. If it has a specific orientation, it must say so candidly.

Some months back I had occasion to recall what a journalist of another generation had said on the role of the press in different societies. I seek your indulgence to recall it here:

‘The role of the press in a democracy is different from that in a totalitarian state. Democracy is government by law; totalitarian state is government by authority; in the former decisions are arrived at by discussion, and in the latter by dictation; in the former the press acts as a check on authority, in the latter it is the hand maid of authority; in the former the press makes the people to think, in the latter to obey without question; in the former the press is necessarily to be free, as without free press there is no free discussion, in the latter the press supports authority.’

This provides the rationale for journalism in a democracy. The constitution and its preamble make evident the nature of our democracy. It is dedicated to the attainment of Justice, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity for the People of India. Its various functions based on these principles are valid and essential, more so in a modern society whose size and numbers need means of communication other than direct face-to-face ones. This is sustained by law.

The Supreme Court has held that ‘the fundamental freedom under Article 19(1)(a) can be reasonably restricted only for the purposes mentioned in Articles 19(2) and the restriction must be justified on the anvil of necessity and not the quirks and of convenience or expediency. Open criticism of Government policies and operations is not a ground for restricting expression. We must practice tolerance to the views of others. Intolerance is as much dangerous to democracy as to the person himself.’

Yet, it has not been smooth sailing. Our democratic state structure dedicated to pursuing a development model premised on justice, equality and fraternity are in reality, as Rajni Kothari put it, ‘characterized by the politicization of a fragmented social structure through a wide dispersal and permeation of political forms, values and ideologies.’

Others have spoken of institutional decay and cancerous growth within them. One observer of the national scene has resorted to a line from the poet Yeats to describe the situation: ‘the best lack all conviction while the worst are full of passionate intensity.’ This passionate intensity often goes beyond the lines of democratic behaviour. Lost in the process is Ambedkar’s focus on public conscience and the observance of constitutional morality. There has been some debate of late about this latter term but, as a former judge of the Supreme Court has observed, it comes under three aspects: equality, liberty and dignity.

This general malaise across all sections of society has its media version. The World Press Freedom Index for 2018 based on a set of known parameters including media independence, transparency and violence against media persons has given India a ranking of 138 in a total of 180 countries. It was 136 a year earlier and 105 in 2009. Similarly, the Freedom of Press report of the Freedom House categorises India as ‘party free’ with an overall score of 43 (out of 100).

As in other walks of life, journalism functions in time and space. A former editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, wrote last year about contemporary challenges to journalism and about the need for journalism to regain the trust of their readers by rethinking its methods and reconfiguring its relationship with the new kaleidoscope of other voices. ‘The stakes for truth has never been higher’ he observed. In a revealing chapter entitled ‘Do You Love Your Country?’ he sheds some useful light on the approach that Western democracies are tending to take on matters of press freedom. These techniques and practices have been replicated in our own country with our own versions of ‘manufacturing consent.’

Over the years, our media has grown in size and coverage. Despite its impressive numbers and diversity, phenomena like cross-media ownership, paid news and fake news, as also the declining role of editors and their editorial freedom, do raise questions about its objectivity and credibility.

Besides these, an unstated major premise is the pervasive national mood of strident nationalism.

How has this come about? What are its dimensions and implications?

We need to begin with a terminological clarification. Humans are social creature and live in societies as citizens in nations in the international system. They owe allegiance to it by legal and emotional bonds which they seek to strengthen. These bonds in normal discourse are depicted as those of patriotism and nationalism; the terms often used interchangeably. Yet the two do differ in meaning and content, as pointed out by the essayist George Orwell whose descriptions bears citation in full:

‘By ‘nationalism’ I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.’

More recently, some European leaders have described nationalism as ‘ideological poison’ and as ‘betrayal of patriotism.’ For this reason, informed opinion is now suggesting the need for striking a balance. An essay in the current issue of the journal Foreign Affairs highlights this approach:

‘Benign forms of popular nationalism follow from political inclusion. They cannot be imposed by ideological policing from above, nor by attempting to educate citizens about what they should regard as their true interests. In order to promote better forms of nationalism, leaders will have to become better nationalists, and learn to look out for the interests of all their people.’

Strident nationalism, on the other hand, has no hesitation in transcending and transgressing individual rights guaranteed by the constitution. It, therefore, has to be guarded against and its ideological premises contested.

III

The historical process of the making of modern India was depicted as nation-in-the-making by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and some others of that period. Nationhood, therefore, could not be taken for granted and had to be constantly developed and consolidated. This process was undertaken by the freedom movement which provided a platform for its articulation, called it nationalism in all its diverse identity and plurality.

This nation-in-the-making exercise necessarily had many dimensions. It meant freedom from constraints as also freedom to act in pursuit of certain desired objectives. The struggle to be free to decide our own destiny involved in the first place a moral and ethical judgment about the desirability of freedom. Next to it was the question of methodology; how to achieve this objective and how not to proceed in pursuit of it.

Leaders and opinion-makers of that period drew sustenance from diverse sources. The consolidation of the British rule also resulted in the emergence of a class of Indians who imbibed modern education and familiarised themselves with many of the principles that were being articulated in the philosophical, political and legal debates in the world beyond our borders. Both these streams of thought influenced those who led our freedom movement; both impacted on the ideas of Mahatma Gandhi.

How did Gandhi ji express his ‘belief in ordered moral government of the universe’ in practical terms? He asserted that ‘it is not nationalism that is evil – it is the narrowness, selfishness, exclusiveness which is the bane of modern nations which is evil.’ He focused on the emotive power of nationalism to forge unity in the regional and communal diversity of India.

Rabindranath Tagore, on the other hand, called nationalism ‘a great menace’ and ‘one of the most powerful anesthetics that man has invented’. He expressed himself emphatically against ‘the idolatry of nation.’ Nehru on his part was opposed to bringing religion into nationalism.

Alongside, the nineteenth-century renaissance movements lead to an attempt to conflate ideas of Hindu cultural nationalism with mainstream nationalism. This was succinctly expressed by Sri Aurobindo in his famous Uttarpara speech of May 30, 1909: ‘I say no longer that nationalism is a creed, a religion, a faith; I say that it is the Sanatan Dharma which for us is nationalism. The Hindu nation was born with Sanatan Dharma, with it moves and with it grows.’

Later versions of this approach have taken the shape of Hindutva as a concept of cultural revitalisation and political mobilisation. Hindutva, wrote Savarkar, ‘is not a word but a history. Hinduism is only a derivative, a fraction, of Hindutva. Hindutva embraces all the departments of thought and activity, of the whole being of our Hindu race.’

Savarkar’s effort was to define the two main coordinates of the Indian nation, its territoriality and its culture, and to demonstrate their congruence. Some years later, the ingredients of this concept were spelt out with greater specificity by Golwalkar who also expressed his opposition to a federal structure and desired an amendment to the constitution to bring about a unitary form of government.

Thus Hindutva has emerged as a concept of cultural revitalisation and political mobilisation. Its approach of ethnic specificity, in the words of sociologists D.L. Sheth and Ashis Nandy, ‘seeks to subjugate and homogenize the ethnic pluralities by establishing the hegemony of an imagined cultural mainstream.’ It has generated social violence by some adherents of this approach.

These principles, depicting Indian nationalism in terms of the faith of the religious majority, have serious negative political implications for sections of the citizen-body and are in violation of the principles of the constitution. In the typology of democracies in social science literature, it would convert our liberal democracy based on the principle of equality into an ethnic one whose characteristics were spelt out in some detail by the sociologist Sammy Smooha on the basis of Israel’s experience:

(i) the dominant national discourse recognises an ethnic group as forming the dominant core nation; (ii) the state separates membership in the single core ethnic nation from citizenship; (iii) the state is owned and ruled by the core ethnic group; (iv) the state mobilises the core ethnic group; (v) noncore groups are accorded incomplete individual and group rights; (vi) the state allows noncore groups to conduct parliamentary and extra parliamentary struggles for change; (vii) the state perceives noncore groups as a threat; (viii) the state imposes some control on noncore groups.

Smooha goes on to define some of the conditions that lead to the establishment of an ethnic democracy – these include the core ethnic group’s numerical majority, is committed to democracy, has support of a diaspora and enjoys international legitimacy.

It is evident that many of these conditions are tending to prevail in our own land today and the model cited above may have been considered by some as worthy of emulation as in the case of the proposed Citizenship (Amendment) Bill pending in parliament.

One consequence of this approach is the ineptitude and bias in governance and departures from Rule of Law. Another is stridency in advocacy of this brand of nationalism accompanied by intolerance of dissent. Both find their reflection in journalism in ample measure.

Violence against journalists remains a matter of serious concern. It has two aspects: firstly violence by those in segments of militant public who do not want coverage of misdeeds, the Gauri Lankesh case being the most condemnable instance of it; and secondly by the authorities in the shape of local security forces who do not want the media to report strong-arm tactics used against public expressions of outrage in specific happenings.

Correctives to the latter are few and rarely prompt, as in the Hashimpura killings case of 1986. In most of these, there is usually state complicity in acts of omission or commission. Both transgress what the law permits; both violate the Rule of Law.

Some writings in the media are candid about a crisis of credibility, internal constrains, curtailment of dissent and an atmosphere of intimidation highlighted by specific instances of violence. This, overt or covert, trend is attributed by one commentator to lack of economic security: ‘if you challenge the government you run the risk of losing your job. Yet for many, this is not just their livelihood but the anchor of their (and sometimes their families) existence.’

Pronouncements of government personalities are occasionally suggestive of derision of the media. The phenomenon of fake news, ‘alternate facts’ and trolling has added to it in good measure. A former chief election commissioner commented on the adverse impact ‘in a big way’ on voter behaviour in elections and the need ‘to bring in a robust mechanism for the conduct of social media platforms.’

The Editors Guild took note of the deteriorating situation on August 8 last year and issued a statement titled ‘an increasingly challenging environment on freedom of the press.’ It ‘condemned the manner in which the right to practice free and independent journalism is seen to be undermined by a combination of forces – some media owners’ inability to withstand political covert or from the political establishment and frequent instances of blocking or interference in the transmission of television content that is seen to be critical of the government.’

It cited specific instances, decries ‘all attempts on the part of the government to interfere in the free and independent functioning of journalists, either put under pressure directly or through the proprietors.’ The statement urged media owners ‘not to cow down to political pressure,’ described as ‘Owellian’ the interference with TV signals, and demanded that corrective action be taken. It decried the tendency ‘on the part of the government and the political class to ‘use selective denial of journalistic access as a weapon.’

Recent events have produced Indian versions of ‘embedded journalism’ and of ‘gussa’ of the public. It has led to what has been called ‘news-distorting nationalism of ratings-hungry TV news channels.’ Credible media observers have noted that ‘a part-communal, part-pseudo-nationalist poison has seeped deep into India’s collective thinking’ and poses ‘a very real threat to Indian democracy.’

The casualty in the process is credibility. These domestic versions of ‘skewed notions of romantic patriotism or tribal allegiance’ have also contested our propensity for ‘democracy and rational thought’ and propel us to agree with Shri Ramachandra Guha’s observation that ‘while we may all wish to be patriots, writers (as well as television anchors) must never become propagandists for a leader, party or government.’

A participant in recent discussions has put it bluntly: ‘Not only is the media celebrating existing immoralities, it is also scaling new heights of impropriety. Crudity is the new definition of refinement – the mainstream media’s vulgarity has destroyed the norms of Indian democracy that once prevailed in the public domain.’

Textbooks on journalism emphasise that the benchmarks for the media are Accuracy, Independence, Impartiality, Humanity and Accountability. Somewhere towards the end of his First Draft, George Verghese observed that ‘a good or great newspaper or channel is for its readers, listeners and viewers, part university, part government, both teacher and overseer… We need to ask ourselves whether the Indian media has departed, or dare depart from that ideal if it wants to remain true to its mission.’

I leave it to this audience to guess what he may have to say from his lofty perch about journalism in this age of strident nationalism.

Jai Hind.

source: The Wire

Feminists’ March To The Day We All Are Treated Equally By The Law And The Society

SAWM Team — Wed, 13 Mar 2019 06:14:04 +0000

If we study the history of woman and her contributions to the human society, we will realise that the role of woman in the evolution of society has been far bigger than that of the man. But this struggle has largely been ignored. However, the struggle and movements of women for their basic rights in the west have encouraged the women around the world to stand up for their rights and equality.

As a German feminist put it: The history and books of history are wrong about me and they have conveyed a wrong image of woman because this image in the books of history has been portrayed by men and there is no space for women in this framework of history.

https://youtu.be/izTi6J27ftI

The exploitation of women goes back to the era when there was no concept of society and agriculture and people used to move from place to place for their survival. At that time, whenever two or more tribes developed a conflict with each other over some issue they would resolve it by exchanging women with each other.

If we study the era of Mughal dynasty, we come across some stunning facts about the exploitation of women.

For example, Zaheeruddin Babur was in Samarqand and his arch rival Shebaani Khan had deployed his army around the city so that Babur couldn’t find a way out. When Babur realised that there was no way out, he handed his sister Khanzada Begum over to Shebaani Khan and escaped from Samarqand.

Rajput clans in India had the tradition that their women would burn themselves alive when their husbands lost the war, in order to save their ‘honour’.

History has seen women like Razia Sultana and Chand BiBi in India, “Elizabeth” in England, and Teresa in Austria who played a very important role in the histories of their respective countries but they were always criticised by their contemporaries who held them responsible for all the flaws in the political system.

Pakistani historian Mubarak Ali says, “It was woman who put this animal in the shape of man on the right track”.

When the church was extremely powerful in Europe and had control over all the administrative activities of the state, the status of woman was completely subservient.

According to a Bishop “woman should serve the man silently and she does not need to read or write, the main duty of woman is to produce more and more children”. St. Paul, the spiritual leader of Christianity, had advised women not to speak among men and always keep their heads and faces covered. History reveals that no other institution has exploited the woman more than the church.

Like all the other religions and communities, the woman in Muslim community was also never allowed to get education, equal rights and take part in the mainstream politics. Woman was forced for early age marriage, which is not only her exploitation but also a sin, even according to Islam.

But the things are changing now with urbanization expanding and women demanding their due rights.

In early 1960s Feminism took root in the US and under this movement women stood up for equal rights in society. This was the movement which gave women the courage to speak for their rights. Beside many other demands, this movement asked the governments around the world to provide voting rights to women and equal chances in every field of life.

As these movements grew in momentum, in 1975 UN announced 8 March to be celebrated every year as International Women’s Day.

Like any other country, the women of Pakistan have struggled a lot demanding equal rights. Feminism in Pakistan took root during Zia era when in 1981 women for the first time in the history of Pakistan launched protests against the anti-women Zia regime.

We have come a long way since the anti-Zia protests and women are coming forward now in all walks of life. The impact of this movement can be seen in the progressive policymaking as well as legislation enacted through the years, specifically in Sindh where “Child Marriage Restrain Act” was passed in 2014, increasing the minimum age for marriage to 18 years. “Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace Act” was passed in Sindh and Blochistan in 2010. Punjab assembly passed the “Protection of Women against Violence Act” in 2016.

Despite these legislations, the number of acid attacks and honor killings has increased over the years. There are huge loopholes still in the law as well in the implementation of the law and unless all the forms of misogyny are rooted out, and until all the women, men and transgender people can enjoy compete equality before law, this struggle for equal rights will continue.

Author: Ali Mansoor

source: Naya Daur

SAWM INDIA STATEMENT ON THE MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT ORDER OF MARCH 8.

SAWM Team — Tue, 12 Mar 2019 10:27:02 +0000

South Asian Women in Media (SAWM) India is deeply concerned by the order of the Meghalaya High Court in a suo moto contempt proceeding initiated against “The Shillong Times” Editor Ms. Patricia Mukhim and its Publisher Ms. Shobha Chaudhury. The Court vide its order dated 08-03-2019 has held them guilty of contempt of court for publishing two stories in December 2018 relating to a court order which sought better facilities for retired judges, their spouses and children. The High Court refused to accept the unconditional apology tendered by Ms Mukhim and Ms Chaudhury and held them guilty of contempt and imposed a fine of Rs.2 lacs to be deposited within a week and also directed them to “sit in the corner of the courtroom” till the rising of the Court. The High Court further directed that “in default of payment of fine, both the contemnors will have to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and paper so called “Shillong Times” will automatically come to an end (banned)”.

SAWM is deeply concerned by this order which has a strong bearing on journalistic freedom and also discourages journalists to report freely and fearlessly.

It is the job of the media, as the fourth pillar of democracy, to report court proceedings and to put current developments in perspective and also to provide alternate points of view. In a vibrant democracy like ours, Media can only flourish, if the government and judiciary encourage freedom of expression and respect journalistic freedom. Ms Mukhim, who is also a member of SAWM, is a senior journalist widely respected for her contributions to media and to society. SAWM stands by Ms Mukhim and Ms Chaudhury in their struggle to uphold their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. SAWM urges the Judiciary to protect and preserve the rights and freedom of the media.

Statement by the Editors Guild against the Meghalaya High Court’s use of its power of contempt against the editor of Shillong Times.

SAWM Team — Mon, 11 Mar 2019 10:09:47 +0000

The Parliamentary Panel Will Reinforce Bias on Twitter, Not Fix It

Maya Mirchandani — Wed, 13 Feb 2019 07:19:01 +0000

The committee, which has set a deadline for Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to appear before it, could have aimed to do much more than just enabling right-wing voices.

Round one of the bout between the parliamentary panel on information technology, led by BJP MP Anurag Thakur, and representatives of Twitter ended as expected – with an extension. The committee asked Twitter’s global CEO, Jack Dorsey to appear before it on February 25 to answer to charges of a ‘liberal’ bias that drowns out right-wing voices.

In an age of nanosecond attention spans, it allows the controversy to stay in the news cycle as the BJP rallies its supporters – ironically, on Twitter – to its cause.

Twitter has just 350 million active users globally, a fraction of Facebook’s nearly 2.5 billion. It begs the question of why the commitee decided to go after a platform that is perhaps the lowest in the hierarchy of usage and profit across the social media landscape. The answer lies not in its numbers, but in politics.

For its size, Twitter punches well above its weight. Its user base seems much more publicly engaged on issues that dominate the news cycle. Global leaders – presidents and prime ministers, celebrities and strongmen alike – tweet directly to users, and sometimes to each other, bypassing the entire ecosystem of official communications, press conferences and statements in the mass news-media.

Tweets make news and often set the agenda for nightly debates on TV in under 280 characters. Twitter’s ability to influence news agendas and mobilise support or dissent (whichever way you look at it), despite its size, is globally formidable.

During the 2014 general election, the social media space in India was dominated by the BJP. Its leaders, including Narendra Modi, had a first-mover advantage – occupying larger-than-life online personas and wielding great influence. Today, a savvier political opposition has caught up and Twitter’s jurisdiction is wide open. Ahead of a volatile, polarised election campaign being fought aggressively online, every byte of space, every character in a tweet, is now fair game.

The right-wing ecosystem of users ‘proud to be followed by PM Modi’, who spent the last five years making a cottage industry out of misinformation and hate, have now levied a charge of bias against Twitter. Stranger still that Twitter’s management can be summoned in election season, on the basis of a complaint by motley BJP supporters, themselves often accused of increasing the platform’s toxicity.

The summons is a leaf directly out of Donald Trump’s playbook. In the months before the US mid-term elections in November 2018, White House officials had to distance themselves from a leaked draft executive order calling on federal agencies to investigate social media companies for ‘online platform bias’ after several statements by President Trump accusing Twitter and Google specifically.

Prime Minister Modi and his party, on the other hand, have thrived on the chimera of social media popularity, even welcoming Dorsey to the PM’s residence in Delhi last year – all in the midst of the US right-wing’s growing outrage against Twitter.

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. Credit: Reuters

Parliamentary committees have subpoena powers. Undoubtedly, those summoned should respect the dignity of India’s parliament and appear. Given Twitter’s statement, rebutting the charges and repeating what Dorsey said last year – that Twitter acts against behaviour, not ideology – the controversy shows no signs of dying down. The parliamentary committee has dug in its heels too, insisting that Dorsey and not his Indian team appear before it. In fact, the goal-posts are already shifting, from simply platform bias to respect for the Indian parliament.

Platforms have a responsibility for the health of conversations and debate on their sites. But that responsibility has proven to be a tightrope walk between freedom of expression and censorship. Last year, India watched as raging storms around misinformation, abuse and privacy violation enveloped Facebook, while New Delhi also took on Facebook’s messaging product, WhatsApp, and hauled its management over the coals for the platform’s unchecked ability to amplify dangerous rumours.

That move was triggered by the lynching of a tech worker in Karnataka on suspicions of child abduction. The alarm over the spread of fake news, forcing WhatsApp to take steps was welcome. Whether those steps have been effective or not is debatable, what is clear as day, however, is the lack of the government’s response to several lynching deaths of Muslims by mobs of cow vigilantes between 2014 and last year.

Stakeholders around the world – governments, tech companies and civil society – are struggling to find ways to build accountability regarding abuse, violent speech, discrimination and fake news on social media.

Plenty of questions have to be answered to achieve this. What is the platform’s responsibility to take down content when they see their own standards violated? How loosely are those standards defined? How do human beings conditioned to behave with civility and dignity, especially in public become the keyboard monsters we see online? What does the ability to be anonymous do to human behaviour?

These are all valid questions. But the committee’s ham-handed decision – to not tackle the underlying problems – is disappointing. With a larger vision, it could have done so much more, much earlier in its term, instead of just defending questionable voices in the service of a heated election campaign.

If anything, the framing of the summons has proved the right-wing’s own bias. Any formal diktat by the committee will only set a dangerous precedent for constitutional restrictions to free speech – problematic for all, irrespective of ideology. Most likely, this episode may just prove a needless distraction as we as a society urgently search for a balance between proximity and civility.

source: The Wire

Sri Lanka’s Center for Investigative Reporting ceremonial launch today

SAWM Team — Wed, 30 Jan 2019 05:36:03 +0000

Addressing a long-felt vacuum, Sri Lanka will launch Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR) at a ceremony at ‘The Lighthouse’ Auditorium of the Lakshman Kadirgamar Institute in Colombo today (January 30).Iqbal Athas, Consultant Editor – Defence Correspondent and Political Editor, The Sunday Times of Sri Lanka will deliver the keynote speech, followed by a panel discussion on ‘Re-imagining Investigative Reporting in Sri Lanka’.

The panelists are Hana Ibrahim, Editor, Daily/Weekend Express; Amal Jayasinghe, Bureau Chief, AFP; and Amantha Perera, Asia-Pacific Coordinator, DART Center for Journalism and Trauma, Columbia University. Moderator of the panel is Shan Wijetunga, Director, Sri Lanka College of Journalism.

“The Center is a collective effort of a group of journalists and media trainers who wish to raise the bar in Sri Lankan journalism. The Center is conceptualised and driven by Sri Lankan journalists for journalists here,” CIR Executive Director Dilrukshi Handunnetti said.

“We wish to support groundbreaking investigative reporting initiatives, adhering to the highest global professional standards,” Ms. Handunnetti said.

“The Center is committed to fostering investigative journalism in Sri Lanka by working with newsrooms to enhance existing talent and by nurturing the next generation of investigative journalists who will represent the industry’s highest standards and equipped to challenge the culture of self-censorship by speaking truth to power,” she said.

The Center has been recognised by the Global Investigative Journalism Network (GIJN)as a member. GIJN is an international association of nonprofit organizations that support, promote and produce investigative journalism.” Its membership is open to “nonprofits, NGOs, and educational organizations” that are active in investigative reporting and data journalism.

source: Daily News

Remembering Lasantha Wickrematunge

SAWM Team — Tue, 08 Jan 2019 08:04:54 +0000

A decade is a long time to grieve, too long to solve a murder. Too long to come to terms that no one cares but for their benefit which does not include the aggrieved. Sad though, this seem to be the reality. Lasantha certainly did not die in vain. The foundation he set has brought about change in the political spectrum of Sri Lanka.

This is visible today in the form of an Independent Judiciary and other Commissions. Willpower within those tasked with bringing such perpetrators, who violated all norms of humanity before the Law is the only step towards converting an otherwise barbaric nation to civility. Lasantha was not the only journalist to lay down his life for penning what he believed in. Many journalists from the North were put down along with him during the darkest period in our Nations history. We grieve for them today. Lasantha would insist on it.

Investigations that were commenced since the Criminal Investigations Department took over have been exhaustive. It has been reported to Court that the Army Intelligence was behind the dastardly act. Others suspected of being the masterminds have been named in Court. Four persons have been killed in the cover-up. Four innocents. High ranking Police Officers are suspected of tampering with evidence. This was the state of our Nation. Reconciliation and closure will not be possible without prosecution. There is no purpose in asking Who Lasantha is. The World knows who Lasantha was. His writing has proven that and will last the test of time.

Let his memory live forever.

-Lal Wickrematunge