Individual Intellectual Freedom

Freedom is one of the prerequisites for a democracy to function and prove itself a worthwhile attempt at efficacious governance. The extent and quality of freedom that a state guarantees to its citizens is therefore indication of a democracy’s smooth operation. India has been hailed across the world for being the largest and most vibrant democracy. But have we imbibed democracy in its fullest sense? Are we a democratic society? If we haven’t what are the deterrents that lie in our path? Do we provide to each and every citizen an intellectual space of his/her own? Do we ensure to every individual freedom to think on their own, freedom to carve out for themselves their notions of value, taste and rectitude? We need to expand our horizons of thought and ideas. More concretely, our democracy is a failure if it does not grant freedom to pursue independent thought and action.

In an age where we are subjected to the high-impact, wide-reach electronic media, which themselves claim to have the “most potent influence on public opinion”; they tell you what to wear and how to speak, what to eat and how to spend---the must-buys, must-reads, must-see-destinations-and-movies. However, one must be aware that one has the choice and freedom to take it or leave it. You do not have to toe the line of a completely different demographic clique just because it is, or is made to appear, the norm. We come in for similar kind of directions from religious leaders and political leaders—people who like many others aim at making general statements and may not share our predilections—which I believe is an affront to individual freedom. In such instances, to back such people solely because one shares a single common irrational identity with them is preposterous. There is greater chance for your political or religious leader to create unrest or unlawfulness or greater—to incite you to violence. That you value your identity is perfectly acceptable but that isn’t reason enough for you to relinquish your rationale. But what often happens is the “imposition of an allegedly unique identity” which is “often a crucial component of the “martial art” of fomenting sectarian confrontation” (Identity and Violence, Amartya Sen). We have seen enough evidences of the same in topical times. The abandoning of reason in groups to which allegiance is emotional like religion or political party is creating negative vibes across the country. Christian establishments, Hindu extremists, Muslim fundamentalists, vested interests and political parties without exception have hijacked sensitive issues and a gullible population has jumped the gun without any attempt at reason and fact. Be it diktats by Raj Thackeray, or Arundhati Roy’s impassioned plea espousing a separate state of Kashmir or release of pastoral letters by the clergy in Kerala, the declaration of illogical fatwas against Sania Mirza or the parochial definitions of India by fascist elements, there is a greater need for us to be resilient to such forms of intellectual spoon-feeding. The fundamental question is—don’t I reserve the right to think for myself? Should my preferences, beliefs and thought processes be dictated by society and individuals?

We cannot afford to call ourselves, or aspire to be, a knowledge society or an enlightened society if we are and will be like we have been-- biased, bereft of free thought, fettered, vulnerable to trivial social stratifications and to political manipulations. By subscribing to extremist views we are usurping the intellectual space accorded to our fellow beings. This may lead to violence, which is unacceptable even as a ‘last resort’. Enlightened moderation—employing reason to carve out a middle-path which is neither left nor right—is probably the most effectual way in granting intellectual freedom to all. There is a crying need for a customized version of the European Renaissance. All evidences point to a decadence into a pre-Renaissance ethos—one of ignorant belligerence or conservative terrorism. Intellectual transformation, insatiable quests for knowledge and learning, a new eclecticism, freedom from bigotry and intolerance, more debate, more discussion and more disagreement as long as they are done within the academic and intellectual space are what the hour calls for.

PS:i'd request those readin this post to air their criticisms.There'll be many as this is a hastily composed article.

Influence of the Media

They made us chant "shame on you!" whenever Dr Talwar appeared on screen, they made us believe that the nuclear deal was the alchemy that India had been waiting for, they also made us believe that there couldn't be a greater evil than the deal, they told us that they brought justice to the souls of Priyadarshini Mattoo and Jessica Lal, Faris Aboobacker for them was the must-know personality---at least for a month, Dhoni's new hairstyle was breaking news and so was Rakhi Sawant's histrionics on 'reality' television, they claim to have unearthed scams, exposed hitherto unknown and classified information. They showcased soaps that go on for years on end---with no end in sight---and have won great acclaim for exhibiting nothing more than the most voguish attires. They lack depth in script, storyline and personas. They're also doing their part in promoting the Great Indian Consumerist Culture—running shows on cars, bikes the latest gizmos and gadgets, on Louis Vuitton, Armani and Pierre Cardin, holiday destinations, makeover parlours and lifestyle charts. Welcome to a world where the Media is king!

Over the last decade or so the electronic media has overtaken the print media and left it trailing far, far behind. The electronic media now has the bull by its horns and is firmly raging onward. It has a colossal stature with respect to size, reach and impact. The media has power to transform how we think and behave, our attitudes beliefs and actions. It has assumed dictatorial proportions with the ability to disseminate strong and influential messages. Media can also influence the way people talk. Certain movies have quotes that can be embedded into the minds of the audience. However, these quotes can be either appropriate or inappropriate. Many famous trials about celebrities such as Michael Jackson have whatever the outcome of the trials, ended in such bad publicity and negative depictions of the people involved that their reputation was damaged sincerely forever. The general public had already formed their opinion even before the trials where held. Even if the celebrity remained out of jail or was proven not guilty his career or popularity could have turned out for the worse due to this. The burgeoning media and the high stakes involved contribute to its constant incursions into the private lives of celebrities, often themselves a creation of the media. It also calls for more gimmicks and other saleable commodities. To quote author J M Coetzee ('Ku-it-zee), "Private life is public business…They want spectacles: breast-beating, remorse, tears if possible."



Reality shows are the flavour of the season. These, however are not all real. They revel in an overdose of theatrics and suspense. What matters here is how best you sell yourself to the crowds and how best you play to the galleries [read judges].



The battle for TRPs also calls for genre conversions. News channels are now infotainment channels—with information as entertaining as ever. Movie and music reviews and celebrity lives are as much a part of the News channels script and itinerary as are Parliament coverage and Economic Policy. This is part of an image shedding exercise---that news is not only serious, elitist and the preserve of an esoteric few but also that of the fun-loving commoner. News is much more happening with live reporting and live visuals. The CNN images of the Gulf wars and Barkha Dutt's audacious reporting from the battle-front during the Kargil operation are all etched in our minds. News is also not mere information but matter tinged with opinion arising out of ideology. There as also been instances where allegations have been levelled of trial by media. In the recent Arushi murder case, the media had pronounced Dr. Talwar, the victim's father, guilty even before investigation proceedings ended. He was finally let off citing lack of evidence. In many other cases of the like the media has a tendency of building up public sentiment in accordance with the tone of their 'investigations'

The traditional print media, though is by no means redundant, has lost much of its sheen to television and the internet. Corporates have bombarded air time with legions of commercials. The E-media with its high impact value is both effective and viable. It has made investment in the media most lucrative. As a result a lot of corporate bigwigs are foraying into the media industry by pumping in huge money. Each of the channels has an USP of its own---an SRK, a Salman, a Prannoy Roy, an Arnab Goswami, a Barkha Dutt. The media is only going to increase in size. And the scope of its impact too.