Some things that disturb me about the bill Anna Hazare is fighting for:
1) The selection of the Jan Lokpal is by a committee that has only one elected member -the Speaker of the Lok Sabha. All the rest are bureaucrats or judges or retired bureaucrats and judges. So in case there is a problem with the selection of the Jan Lokpal, in case it is someone controversial, where can a voice be raised against it? Definitely not in Parliament! We call ourselves a democracy but we leave the selection of a Lokpal to the hands of a few wise men?
2) One of the members of the Jan Lokpal selection committee is a retired Army general. The army has no responsibility in fighting corruption. Then why should he be a member of the committee? India has so far been free from military intervention in civilian affairs. Now we are inviting the army to intervene in an area where they have no say whatsoever.
3) The Jan Lokpal will also comprise the anti-corruption wing of the CBI and all the staff of the Central Vigilance Commission. The assumption is that all these officers have so far failed to take action against the corrupt only because they had to answer to politicians and now that they are under the control of the Jan Lokpal, everything will become all right. Isn't this a bit simplistic? Even if all these officers are under the control of the Jan Lokpal, would they stop listening to politicians? So on the one hand we are giving the Jan Lokpal massive powers. On the other hand, we are giving it the same machinery which existed till now. Is this safe?
4) It is an established principle all over the world that the same agency should not exercise judicial and police powers. However, the Jan Lokpal can issue warrants and orders for seizing property (which is the function of the judiciary) even as it investigates the case(police powers). Thus, the Lokpal has both judicial and investigative powers. A lawyer friend friend tells me certain agencies such as Revenue Intelligence have such powers. However, it is important to remember the such agencies are under a proper chain of command. The Jan Lok Pal is completely independent of any agency and it even has contempt of court powers. Is this a good outcome?
5) The members of the Jan Lokpal can be dismissed only by a bench of Supreme Court judges. Even Supreme Court judges and the Chief Election Commissioner and the Chief Vigilance Commissioner are all responsible to Parliament. For the first time perhaps, we have an agency with wide ranging powers that is not responsible to Parliament. Some say this is a good thing since politicians are not involved but are we not giving too much of unchecked power in one organisation's hands. One of the key aspects of accountability is ensuring that no one entity has so much power. How do we call this democratic?
I am not a lawyer or a legal expert. From a common man's reading of the Bill , it seems we are creating a super-organisation with great powers and hoping it will be effective because it will be controlled by wise men. In a country where corruption is so wide-spread and efficient, isn't this attitude very dangerous? Thousands of people gathered all over the country over the past many days demanding this BIll. And this gathering is being called a great moment for democracy and a "second freedom struggle". Based on the observations above, are we actually strengthening democracy or weakening it?
Somehow it seems to be, seeking support for this Bill in the name of democracy is like holding a gun to my head and asking for protection money.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Monday, April 11, 2011
Thursday, July 29, 2010
My, My!!
Opinions are often merely worth a dime a dozen(yes, I also write a blog) and those who work for newspapers and write in them ought above all to be conscious of this fact while spouting their infinite wisdom for the benefit of unsuspecting readers. That it does not happen, sadly enough, is yet again proved by an opinion piece that appeared in The Telegraph today which mocks CPI(M) general secretary Prakash Karat's usage of the term "my party".
Part pop-psychology, part senseless nitpick and all selective citation of history, the article harps on and on about why Karat uses the word my. Now any sane person who has talked to communists from anywhere in India would know that activists from your average SFI enthusiast to hard-core workers use the phrase "my party" without presuming, one hopes, to own the party. But let's take away the personal experience element and refer to the journalist's bible..fact!
A random search on google for 'my party' reveals quite a few uses of the dreaded 'my' with reference to communist parties. There is a John Boyden from Ontario, a candidate for the communist party, who uses the word "my party". An article on socialism in the United States refers to a slogan that went "My Party, right or wrong, my Party!”.
And oops..
"..We have much better historical justification in saying whether it is right or wrong in certain individual concrete cases, it is my party.... And if the Party adopts a decision which one or other of us thinks unjust, he will say, just or unjust, it is my party, and I shall support the consequences of the decision to the end."
That was err...Leon Trotsky and that too at a time when he was losing hold over the organisation. Not Stalin I admit, but still...
But facts aside, what sickens one in the article is the unbelievable smugness that permeates the article which rests on basically..nothing!
For instance:
"Many believe that he forces his own views on the party and often transgresses the party’s injunction to lead a simple life. These are the perceptions, and without access to the secret archives of the CPI(M), I am not even suggesting that they are necessarily true.But Mr Karat’s description of the CPI(M) as “my party” only confirms, in a bizarre way, the general impression about his arrogance and the suspicion that he runs the party according to his own whims and fancies"
"Many believe"? "General impression"? "Secret archives"? And in between, the arrogant "I am not even suggesting.."
There is of course, the typical psycho-analytical babble about illusions of control and so on. I am surprised there was no reference to a Mr. Karat's possible hatred of his father.
Now I am not arguing that Prakash Karat is not an arrogant man or that he is the leader of India's greatest party. All I am wondering is how an individual who gets the opportunity to analyse an issue in a newspaper chooses to do so in such a flimsy, baseless way while trying to give the impression of sounding 'intellectual' and sarcastic(?). I realise opinion journalism(as the name would suggest) ought to give space for opinions but does that mean someone gets to air the journalistic equivalent of a cheap party trick in a nationally respected newspaper? It's something to think about, I guess, while we all(including I myself) whine about the decline of standards of the Indian media.
Funnily enough, the author jeers at Mr. Karat's learning Marxism "at the feet of Victor Kiernan"and his being trained in"the Stalinist school of falsification". Funnily enough, Professor Victor Kiernan left the Communist Party in 1959 apparently disgusted at the 1956 suppression of the riots in Hungary by Soviet Russia, which I think, would qualify in the world of the author, as a Stalinist tactic. But of course, one would have to do a basic fact-check to find that out...Sigh.
P.S. I have deliberately not referred to the identity of the author or his politics or his past record so that I could in an 'anti-postmodern' sort of way, merely focus on the article.
Part pop-psychology, part senseless nitpick and all selective citation of history, the article harps on and on about why Karat uses the word my. Now any sane person who has talked to communists from anywhere in India would know that activists from your average SFI enthusiast to hard-core workers use the phrase "my party" without presuming, one hopes, to own the party. But let's take away the personal experience element and refer to the journalist's bible..fact!
A random search on google for 'my party' reveals quite a few uses of the dreaded 'my' with reference to communist parties. There is a John Boyden from Ontario, a candidate for the communist party, who uses the word "my party". An article on socialism in the United States refers to a slogan that went "My Party, right or wrong, my Party!”.
And oops..
"..We have much better historical justification in saying whether it is right or wrong in certain individual concrete cases, it is my party.... And if the Party adopts a decision which one or other of us thinks unjust, he will say, just or unjust, it is my party, and I shall support the consequences of the decision to the end."
That was err...Leon Trotsky and that too at a time when he was losing hold over the organisation. Not Stalin I admit, but still...
But facts aside, what sickens one in the article is the unbelievable smugness that permeates the article which rests on basically..nothing!
For instance:
"Many believe that he forces his own views on the party and often transgresses the party’s injunction to lead a simple life. These are the perceptions, and without access to the secret archives of the CPI(M), I am not even suggesting that they are necessarily true.But Mr Karat’s description of the CPI(M) as “my party” only confirms, in a bizarre way, the general impression about his arrogance and the suspicion that he runs the party according to his own whims and fancies"
"Many believe"? "General impression"? "Secret archives"? And in between, the arrogant "I am not even suggesting.."
There is of course, the typical psycho-analytical babble about illusions of control and so on. I am surprised there was no reference to a Mr. Karat's possible hatred of his father.
Now I am not arguing that Prakash Karat is not an arrogant man or that he is the leader of India's greatest party. All I am wondering is how an individual who gets the opportunity to analyse an issue in a newspaper chooses to do so in such a flimsy, baseless way while trying to give the impression of sounding 'intellectual' and sarcastic(?). I realise opinion journalism(as the name would suggest) ought to give space for opinions but does that mean someone gets to air the journalistic equivalent of a cheap party trick in a nationally respected newspaper? It's something to think about, I guess, while we all(including I myself) whine about the decline of standards of the Indian media.
Funnily enough, the author jeers at Mr. Karat's learning Marxism "at the feet of Victor Kiernan"and his being trained in"the Stalinist school of falsification". Funnily enough, Professor Victor Kiernan left the Communist Party in 1959 apparently disgusted at the 1956 suppression of the riots in Hungary by Soviet Russia, which I think, would qualify in the world of the author, as a Stalinist tactic. But of course, one would have to do a basic fact-check to find that out...Sigh.
P.S. I have deliberately not referred to the identity of the author or his politics or his past record so that I could in an 'anti-postmodern' sort of way, merely focus on the article.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Embedded yet committed?
The dismissal of Gen Stanley McChrystal after a damning profile in the Rolling Stone magazine is not likely to be big news in India. However, the story does raise an interesting question on journalism in these contentious times when we ponder the wisdom of sending the army to fight our own people.
I am going on a limb here, but the Indian media does not seem to have come up with the kind of access-based reporting of the Indian security forces' operations that the Rolling Stone article perfects. Now, it's an open question whether we need more official versions but I would think that access-based reporting that sticks to the principles of journalism can bring out far more colours than the drab grey of officialese.
Our visualisation of the many conflicts taking place in our country, whether Kashmir or Chattisgarh are crippled by our inability to see them as fights involving people-even if they happen to be in uniform. Reporting of this sort, if it can stay off the tempting jingoistic ride, can perhaps influence public opinion about these silent wars in a subtle yet effective way.
Of course knowing all the practical and professional difficulties associated with such an endeavour, it's too much to ask;still...
I am going on a limb here, but the Indian media does not seem to have come up with the kind of access-based reporting of the Indian security forces' operations that the Rolling Stone article perfects. Now, it's an open question whether we need more official versions but I would think that access-based reporting that sticks to the principles of journalism can bring out far more colours than the drab grey of officialese.
Our visualisation of the many conflicts taking place in our country, whether Kashmir or Chattisgarh are crippled by our inability to see them as fights involving people-even if they happen to be in uniform. Reporting of this sort, if it can stay off the tempting jingoistic ride, can perhaps influence public opinion about these silent wars in a subtle yet effective way.
Of course knowing all the practical and professional difficulties associated with such an endeavour, it's too much to ask;still...
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Speaker is a crybaby?
The last couple of days have been extremely newsworthy, what with Obama's speech and Prathibha Patil's speech and the threat of terrorist action and all. But some gems stand out even among the hullabaloo, rather are amplified in effect etcetc.
"Asked whether she gets angry and resorts to crying, she said: “No, I do not cry. But, like all other people, I do get angry sometimes.”
(source)
That was the media's classy query to Meira Kumar following her appointment to the post of Speaker. Somehow, I cannot visualize them asking the same question to Somnath Chatterjee or anyone of a similar persuasion in gender.
"Asked whether she gets angry and resorts to crying, she said: “No, I do not cry. But, like all other people, I do get angry sometimes.”
(source)
That was the media's classy query to Meira Kumar following her appointment to the post of Speaker. Somehow, I cannot visualize them asking the same question to Somnath Chatterjee or anyone of a similar persuasion in gender.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
10 hours of continuous TV watching and my winner is....
NDTV24X7
After hours of back-breaking research into comparative election coverage(fine, it was just the first two hours!), I conclude that NDTV 24X7 came out a marginal winner in the contest for the least annoying TV channel covering the election roller-coaster. NDTV's graphics were updated at a faster rate, were more clearer and the analysis was actually a bit more sober than that of its nearest rival CNN-IBN. The latter, which was affected by a keen desire to prove itself in its first general election, ended up being a bit too shrill and the analysis sometimes distracted the viewer from the updates that were coming in. Times Now was unfortunately a poor third as it lagged behind in speed and analysis.
Of course, all was not rosy with NDTV as well. One got to see Barkha Dutt's face contorting in every way possible pretty often as the camera was slow in moving away from her face while she was communicating with her team plus there were quite a few technical glitches. But these were only the superficial(and mildly entertaining) issues that the media exhibited. The real ones perhaps lie much deeper.
It is pretty obvious that while many of the exit polls predicted the direction of the results, they often went completely wrong in the specifics(which is why they failed to get the numbers). This could partly be the result of some genuine nervousness after the debacle in 2004(NDTV psephologist Dorab Sopariwala looked like he would have a heart attack till the results began coming out). Another reason could be the fact that national channels have abandoned the concept of reporting from the ground and often depend on correspondents who are stationed at state capitals and have access to political leaders alone. Thus the failure to see trends in UP and West Bengal, which considering their magnitude, should have been quite a bit obvious.
It is easy to understand why news channels are slowly abandoning the kind of reporting necessary to predict swings like these. Varun's Gandhi's antics are any day more entertaining and 'news-worthy' than shifts in the voting patters in eastern UP and it saves so much man-power when you can attribute the decimation of the CPI(M) to 'rural discontent' without exactly defining what it is. It is important that channels and media watchers keep these issues in mind and frequently remind themselves that getting the trends right is no achievement in itself when significant developments are completely missed out during the course of analysis.
Other mundane points.
1) Everyone seems ready to applaud and bid a warm farewell to L.K.Advani. This is utter crap. However much he 'tried' to modify his stance, India cannot forgive the man who led the march to demolish the Babri Masjid.
2) Karan Thapar is an awesome interviewer. He is also a bad anchor. The drama involved in his exclaiming mundane phrases like 'vote percentage' is seriously off-putting.
3) Barkha Dutt and Vikram Chandra are a very bad pair. They frequently kept tripping up each other. Me thinks there is some serious power struggles on at NDTV.
4) Times Now needs some decent support staff for Arnab Goswami. Poor fellow seems sagging from all that pressure.
5) Why was Lord Meghnad Desai a part of the CNN-IBN coverage? Why not Mandira Bedi the next time then?
6) Amidst Rajdeep Sardesai's brazen attempts to promote CNN-IBN, Prannoy Roy is more balanced any day.
The election season is as good as any to give out a spree of Katrina Awards and there are many who have qualified for the said honor, from the Amma of the South to Comrade Karat. But then, I look back and realize that since the award committee itself was living in quite a deluded world(I was quite sure of a hung parliament), it is perhaps time to forgive and forget in the best traditions of this election season. Chilllll!! :)
PS. A modified version of this post was first published at desicritics
PS2. I just found out that I was not the only person to have the bright idea of comparing the performance of news channels. The media watchdog website, The Hoot has a significantly more comprehensive piece on the coverage. But then, the Hoot is a media watchdog website. This is just the dailypheesh ;)
After hours of back-breaking research into comparative election coverage(fine, it was just the first two hours!), I conclude that NDTV 24X7 came out a marginal winner in the contest for the least annoying TV channel covering the election roller-coaster. NDTV's graphics were updated at a faster rate, were more clearer and the analysis was actually a bit more sober than that of its nearest rival CNN-IBN. The latter, which was affected by a keen desire to prove itself in its first general election, ended up being a bit too shrill and the analysis sometimes distracted the viewer from the updates that were coming in. Times Now was unfortunately a poor third as it lagged behind in speed and analysis.
Of course, all was not rosy with NDTV as well. One got to see Barkha Dutt's face contorting in every way possible pretty often as the camera was slow in moving away from her face while she was communicating with her team plus there were quite a few technical glitches. But these were only the superficial(and mildly entertaining) issues that the media exhibited. The real ones perhaps lie much deeper.
It is pretty obvious that while many of the exit polls predicted the direction of the results, they often went completely wrong in the specifics(which is why they failed to get the numbers). This could partly be the result of some genuine nervousness after the debacle in 2004(NDTV psephologist Dorab Sopariwala looked like he would have a heart attack till the results began coming out). Another reason could be the fact that national channels have abandoned the concept of reporting from the ground and often depend on correspondents who are stationed at state capitals and have access to political leaders alone. Thus the failure to see trends in UP and West Bengal, which considering their magnitude, should have been quite a bit obvious.
It is easy to understand why news channels are slowly abandoning the kind of reporting necessary to predict swings like these. Varun's Gandhi's antics are any day more entertaining and 'news-worthy' than shifts in the voting patters in eastern UP and it saves so much man-power when you can attribute the decimation of the CPI(M) to 'rural discontent' without exactly defining what it is. It is important that channels and media watchers keep these issues in mind and frequently remind themselves that getting the trends right is no achievement in itself when significant developments are completely missed out during the course of analysis.
Other mundane points.
1) Everyone seems ready to applaud and bid a warm farewell to L.K.Advani. This is utter crap. However much he 'tried' to modify his stance, India cannot forgive the man who led the march to demolish the Babri Masjid.
2) Karan Thapar is an awesome interviewer. He is also a bad anchor. The drama involved in his exclaiming mundane phrases like 'vote percentage' is seriously off-putting.
3) Barkha Dutt and Vikram Chandra are a very bad pair. They frequently kept tripping up each other. Me thinks there is some serious power struggles on at NDTV.
4) Times Now needs some decent support staff for Arnab Goswami. Poor fellow seems sagging from all that pressure.
5) Why was Lord Meghnad Desai a part of the CNN-IBN coverage? Why not Mandira Bedi the next time then?
6) Amidst Rajdeep Sardesai's brazen attempts to promote CNN-IBN, Prannoy Roy is more balanced any day.
The election season is as good as any to give out a spree of Katrina Awards and there are many who have qualified for the said honor, from the Amma of the South to Comrade Karat. But then, I look back and realize that since the award committee itself was living in quite a deluded world(I was quite sure of a hung parliament), it is perhaps time to forgive and forget in the best traditions of this election season. Chilllll!! :)
PS. A modified version of this post was first published at desicritics
PS2. I just found out that I was not the only person to have the bright idea of comparing the performance of news channels. The media watchdog website, The Hoot has a significantly more comprehensive piece on the coverage. But then, the Hoot is a media watchdog website. This is just the dailypheesh ;)
Friday, May 8, 2009
One week more.
It's only a week to the declaration of results and to be honest, I feel underwhelmed. On one hand, there is the relentless and suffocating, yet immensely absorbing coverage and on the other, there are the tons of sanctimoniousness thrown around by every 'concerned' celebrity. So it's no wonder that an avid spectator of the political scene like me is into hair-tearing mode by now.
My first brush with election coverage came in 1996 when I began watching the declaration of results because I was terrified after watching the movie Kalapani. Those were the days when Doordarshan ruled the roost and viewers had to do with the sober and controlled narration of news(imagine Arnab Goswami in Doordarshan). While I would never even dream of, or want a return to those times, I sure would love a reduction in the volume of coverage. Random shows with politicians spouting random answers to random questions is not my definition of quality news although most of what we get to see today is just that.
Sample.
Arnab Goswami talks to Sachin Pilot and Rajiv Pratap Rudy on 'which party has gen next'!
Sachin Pilot talks about why the turnout in the fourth phase of the election is not so bad.
Rajiv Rudy goes on an extended rant about the Congress.
WTF!
Instances like these will not, of course, stop me from gazing into the screen with the ardor of a mystic or from bitching, ranting and (hopefully) blogging about news programs but someday, some rare, far, remote day..don't we deserve better stuff?
But then, don't we deserve better politicians as well? :P
My first brush with election coverage came in 1996 when I began watching the declaration of results because I was terrified after watching the movie Kalapani. Those were the days when Doordarshan ruled the roost and viewers had to do with the sober and controlled narration of news(imagine Arnab Goswami in Doordarshan). While I would never even dream of, or want a return to those times, I sure would love a reduction in the volume of coverage. Random shows with politicians spouting random answers to random questions is not my definition of quality news although most of what we get to see today is just that.
Sample.
Arnab Goswami talks to Sachin Pilot and Rajiv Pratap Rudy on 'which party has gen next'!
Sachin Pilot talks about why the turnout in the fourth phase of the election is not so bad.
Rajiv Rudy goes on an extended rant about the Congress.
WTF!
Instances like these will not, of course, stop me from gazing into the screen with the ardor of a mystic or from bitching, ranting and (hopefully) blogging about news programs but someday, some rare, far, remote day..don't we deserve better stuff?
But then, don't we deserve better politicians as well? :P
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
The curious case of Ajit D.
Sigh! It's been a long time and finally I have something to write about. After all, it's an issue of survival(hope that sounds apocalyptic enough).
The case of Ajit.D has lit up an Olympic Torch-ful of protest as angry bloggers and some elements in the press are howling(or in the case of The Hindu, soberly reporting) in protest and for good reason too. The Supreme Court following its tradition of oscillating between admirable progressiveness and downright stuck-in-the-mudism has delivered a verdict which is amusing and alarming at the same time. Here's a quasi-legal take on it.
There are a couple of things which confuse me though. First of all, is there no difference between a social networking site and a blog in 'legalese'? If there is and even if there isn't, why has the media and presumably the court(based on the reports I have seen) reported it as an issue facing blogs? I agree that these media are related and often overlap but are not the agreements that form the basis of use of these two media different? For that matter, how is it that orkut itself has not been added as a party to this case? There are innumerable issues here which touch not only concepts of freedom but also the working of websites, especially social networking sites.
Of course this does not imply that the main struggle, which is one against sheer stupidity and shoddy(oops i said the 's' word) judicial processes be ignored but let's hope this does not merely subside into yet another instance of the 'Outrage Industrial Complex' having a field day.
ps. Has NDTV24x7 reported the issue yet? Their website does not seem to have a story on the issue! I can imagine Barkha Dutt smirking
ps.2 Katrina Kaif, I believe, is a gracious woman..else I might be in a pickle
The case of Ajit.D has lit up an Olympic Torch-ful of protest as angry bloggers and some elements in the press are howling(or in the case of The Hindu, soberly reporting) in protest and for good reason too. The Supreme Court following its tradition of oscillating between admirable progressiveness and downright stuck-in-the-mudism has delivered a verdict which is amusing and alarming at the same time. Here's a quasi-legal take on it.
There are a couple of things which confuse me though. First of all, is there no difference between a social networking site and a blog in 'legalese'? If there is and even if there isn't, why has the media and presumably the court(based on the reports I have seen) reported it as an issue facing blogs? I agree that these media are related and often overlap but are not the agreements that form the basis of use of these two media different? For that matter, how is it that orkut itself has not been added as a party to this case? There are innumerable issues here which touch not only concepts of freedom but also the working of websites, especially social networking sites.
Of course this does not imply that the main struggle, which is one against sheer stupidity and shoddy(oops i said the 's' word) judicial processes be ignored but let's hope this does not merely subside into yet another instance of the 'Outrage Industrial Complex' having a field day.
ps. Has NDTV24x7 reported the issue yet? Their website does not seem to have a story on the issue! I can imagine Barkha Dutt smirking
ps.2 Katrina Kaif, I believe, is a gracious woman..else I might be in a pickle
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
