How could 100,000 Britishers, who came from far away, conquer and rule over 350 million Indians during the British Raj ?
This happened for two reasons
(1) Indians were technically backward
(2) We were divided.
Presently we have no dearth of technical talent. In fact Indian IT engineers are largely manning Silicon Valley in California, and American Universities have numerous professors of science, engineering, mathematics, medicine, etc, and technically India is today the most developed of the underdeveloped countries in the world.
So it is the second reason which has become all important today. It is our disunity which is preventing us from becoming a modern industrial giant, like China. We are badly divided on the basis of religion, caste, ethnicity, etc, and unless we are united we will never be able to rapidly industrialise and abolish poverty, unemployment, malnutrition, and the other evils which plague us today.
Some people think that because of our tremendous diversity we can never unite. I do not agree. Diversity can be a source of weakness, but it can also be a source of strength.
It is a source of weakness if we hate each other or fight with each other, as is happening in India today.
But it can also be a source of strength. For instance, USA is the most powerful and advanced nation in the world today, and one factor which contributed to this was its diversity. People from different countries in Europe, Asia, Latin America, etc came to USA bringing with them their own technical knowledge and culture, and when these were pooled together it contributed to rapid progress.
So we need not worry too much about our diversity. There can be unity despite diversity.
Unfortunately we adopted the parliamentary system of democracy, which runs ( as everyone knows ) largely on the basis of caste and communal vote banks. Casteism and communalism are feudal forces which must be destroyed if India is to progress, but parliamentary democracy further entrenches them ( as it runs largely on that basis ). Our politicians, who have no genuine love for the country but are only interested in power and pelf, incite caste, communal and ethnic hatred for getting votes, which divides us.
So we have to devise an alternative system which unites us, and under which we rapidly industrialise and emerge as a modern industrial giant, of which we have all the potential.
How that alternative system can be created, how much time will that take, who will be the modern minded leaders who will lead the people’s struggle in creating and running it, no one can presently predict. One cannot be rigid about historical forms. The people will have to use their creativity in this connection.
But it is only by creating such an alternative system, in which people are solidly united, can we ensure that never again will a handful of foreigners rule over us, directly or indirectly
I regret I have to write this strong letter to you, but I must.
You have all taken an oath to uphold the Pakistan Constitution, which has a right to life and liberty ( vide Article 9 ).
So it is your solemn duty to order release of Imran Khan ( also ordering that he not be arrested on his release on other charges ), as well as the 10,000 people arrested on concocted charges after the events of 9th May.
If you cannot do that please pack up, resign, and go home, as you are disloyal to your oath, and are consequently unfit to be judges.
It may be mentioned that even when an FIR is filed against a person, the police is not bound to arrest him/her. This is clear from section 157 of the Pakistan Criminal Procedure Code which states :
” Procedure where cognizable offence suspected: (1) If from information received or otherwise, an officer incharge of a police-station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall proceed in person to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstance of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender ”.
The use of the word ” if necessary ” at the end of this provision implies that the police should not arrest someone unless it is necessary. The police can question the accused at his home or place of work, without arresting him/her. But it is evident that the police arrested these 10,000 persons who are in jail without even considering whether it was necessary to arrest them.
In Joginder Kumar vs. State of U.P. (AIR 1994 S.C. 1349), the Indian Supreme Court observed:
“No arrest can be made because it is lawful for the police officer to do so. The existence of the power to arrest is one thing. The justification for the exercise of it is quite another. The police officer must be able to justify the arrest, apart from his power to do so.
Arrest and detention in police lock-up of a person can cause incalculable harm to the reputation and self-esteem of a person. No arrest can be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of commission of an offence made against a person. It would be prudent for a police officer, in the interest of protection of the constitutional rights of a citizen, and perhaps in his own interest, to ensure that no arrest should be made without a reasonable satisfaction reached after some investigation as to the genuineness and bona fides of a complaint and a reasonable belief both as to the person’s complicity and even so as to the need to effect arrest.
Denying a person of his liberty is a serious matter. The recommendations of the Police Commission merely reflect the constitutional concomitants of the fundamental right to personal liberty and freedom. A person is not liable to arrest merely on the suspicion of complicity in an offence. There must be some reasonable justification in the opinion of the officer effecting the arrest that such arrest is necessary and justified. Except in heinous offences, an arrest must be avoided if a police officer issues notice to person to attend the Station House and not to leave the Station without permission would do.”
The last sentence is important, though usually ignored by policemen. In the same judgment, the Indian Supreme Court has observed that the power to arrest is a major source of corruption for the police, and that according to the Third Report of the National Police Commission, about 60 per cent of arrests in India are either unnecessary or unjustified. The same must be the position in Pakistan
To make an illegal arrest is a crime (wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement) punishable under sections 341 and 342 I.P.C.
A wrongful arrest is violative of Article 9 of the Pakistan Constitution, which guarantees life and liberty to all persons. In Deepak Bajaj vs. State of Maharashtra ( 2008 ) the Indian Supreme Court observed:
“The purpose of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution ( which is akin to Article 9 in the Pakistan Constitution ) is to safeguard the liberty of the citizen, which is a precious right not to be lightly transgressed by anyone. The imperative necessity to protect those precious rights is a lesson taught by all history and all human experience. Our founding fathers had lived through bitter years of the freedom struggle and seen an alien government trample upon the human rights of our citizens. It is for this reason that they introduced Article 21 in the Constitution “.
In Ghani vs. Jones (1970)1 Q.B. 693 (709) Lord Denning observed:
“A man’s liberty of movement is regarded so highly by the law of England that it is not to be hindered or prevented except on the surest ground”
The above observation has been quoted with approval by the Indian Supreme Court in Govt. of Andhra Pradesh vs. P. Laxmi Devi J.T. 2008 (2) SC 639 (vide para 90).
Apart from the above, in State of Rajasthan vs Balchand, 1977 the Indian Supreme Court held that bail, not jail, is the normal rule, unless the accused is charged with a heinous offence or is likely to abscond or tamper with the evidence
In Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI the Indian Supreme Court observed :
” Any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content ”. This is because criminal trials in India ( and in Pakistan ) usually take a long time to conclude, often years, and if the accused is ultimately found innocent who will restore him/her the time spent in jail ?
In England, when a case is filed in the High Court relating to individual liberty ( habeas corpus or bail ), the Judge sets aside the files of all other cases and takes up that case on priority basis.
So it is your solemn duty to take up the cases of Imran Khan and the other 10,000 persons in prison, and order their release, failing which you will be branded as the modern Judge Jeffreys and traitors to your own institution
The Indian origin journalist Mayank Chhaya, who is based in Chicago, has written an article on the film star Dev Anand, published in the portal indicanews.com
The article mentions little about Dev Anand’s films, and only recounts some encounters with him.
Films are a form of art, and about art and literature there are broadly two theories (1) art for art’s sake, and (2) art for social purpose.
The proponents of the first theory believe that the purpose of art is to create a work of beauty to please people’s aesthetic feelings, or to entertain them. If art is used for social purpose it ceases to be art and becomes propaganda.
On the other hand, proponent’s of the second theory believe that apart from providing entertainment, art should also serve a social purpose, by attacking social injustices, and inspiring people in their struggle for a better life.
Since films are also a form of art, which school should be followed in making films in India ?
In rich countries there can be no objection to films like the James Bond movies, or films of Sylvester Stallone, or Terminator, which were only for entertainment, but with no social purpose.
But in poor countries, films must also have a social purpose, apart from providing entertainment. This is because in these countries most people are leading miserable lives, and art should help them in their struggle for better lives. Pure entertainment without any social relevance is really like a drug which makes people forget their miserable lives for a couple of hours.
It is for this reason that I criticised the film ‘Pathan’ as it had no social relevance, and was just to provide entertainment by sensationalism and thrills.
Films of Raj Kapoor, like Awaara, Shri 420, Boot Polish, Jaagte Raho, etc had social relevance ( apart from providing entertainment ). Similarly, films of Satyajit Ray ( like Ashani Sanket ), Charlie Chaplin ( like Limelight, The Great Dictator ), Sergei Eisenstein ( like Battleship Potempkin ), etc had social relevance, and these were hits at the box office. So it cannot be said that films having social relevance cannot be successes.
But most of Dev Anand’s films, like those of Rajesh Khanna, Amitabh Bacchan, Shah Rukh Khan, etc had no social relevance, and were solely entertainment.
I regret that Dev Anand’s ‘flamboyance’ may have impressed Mayank Chhaya and many other people who are only interested in thrills, but it hardly impresses me
Moeed Pirzada is an upright Pakistani journalist, whom I respect, as he is bravely fighting for restoration of democracy in Pakistan.
However, with respect, his recent video talk reveals his inanity and superficial understanding.
Most of his talk is a rambling discourse on Indian history, which everyone is conversant with.
Moeed does not mention anything about what I told him in his interview of me some time back.
Towards the end of his talk Moeed refers to the Pakistani diaspora, and says that they are more knowledgeable than local Pakistanis, and should play a role in the political direction in Pakistan.
I too go often to USA and Canada and have interacted with many Pakistanis settled there. I found them to be fine people, and it is true that most of them are highly qualified as scientists, engineers, doctors, etc.
But to think that they can play a role in Pakistan is a facetious idea. They are interested in making money, and leading a comfortable life in North America.
Yes, many of them contribute some money to schools, hospitals, etc in Pakistan, and many have held demonstrations demanding restoration of democracy in Pakistan.
But that is about the end of their patriotism. To expect them to give up their comforts is asking too much.
Contrast this to what happened after the Chinese Revolution of 1949. Hundreds of Chinese scientists returned to China e.g. Deng Jiaxian, who had received his Ph.D. in nuclear physics from a top American University, and returned to China in 1950, and later became a major architect of the Chinese nuclear weapons program.
These scientists and students were welcomed back in China with open arms by the Chinese Govt, and many of the returnees took key positions in the Chinese research, development, and educational systems. The cutting edge science and technology they brought back gave the Chinese leaders growing confidence that China could indeed launch its modernization drive. It may also have encouraged the Chinese leadership to pursue increasing independence from the Soviet Union.
Altogether, from 1949 to 1956, 129 of these returned students went to work in the elite Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), and 109 of them achieved the senior status of associate research fellow (equivalent to associate professor), accounting for one quarter of all such positions in the academy. Qian Xuesen became the director of the Institute of Mechanics of the academy and later organized the Chinese rocket and missile programs. In fact, the Chinese government decided to launch its missile program in large part due to the return of Qian. Both individually and as a group, it is difficult to overestimate the importance of these returned students and scientists to the Chinese nuclear weapons and space programs. Among the twenty‐three Chinese scientists who were given national medals in 1999 for their contributions to the nuclear, missile, and satellite projects, nine had returned to China between 1949 and 1957.
These scientists who returned to China after 1949 received only a tiny fraction of the salaries and other benefits which they were getting in America, yet a burning sense of patriotism and a desire to build China as a modern industrial country made them return to their homeland, giving up many of their comforts in America.
Will any of the Pakistani diaspora do that ? I doubt it. They may contribute to some charity in Pakistan, but that is about all. They will certainly not permanently return to Pakistan.
I saw yesterday on the internet the proceedings ( which were broadcast live ) before the full bench of the Pakistan Supreme Court over which you presided, and I must say I was very disappointed, particularly by the abrasive and aggressive way you behaved, not only to counsels, but even towards your companion judges. showing them scant respect.
But now I wish to speak to you on a more important matter.
I need scarcely remind you that you have taken an oath to uphold Pakistan’s Constitution, and the Constitution has a chapter on fundamental rights of the citizens, like the right to life and liberty.
So it is your solemn duty to protect the fundamental rights of the citizens, but these have been flagrantly violated on a large scale with impunity, particularly after the events of 9th May, when a reign of terror was unleashed in Pakistan.
Over 10,000 people ( including women ) have been arrested after 9th May on concocted charges, often dragged out from their houses which were broken into, brutally beaten and tortured, jailed for over 4 months in horrible conditions, and some just ‘disappeared ‘, with the judiciary turning a Nelson’s eye on these atrocities.
The latest example of these horrors is the death of the 9 year old boy Ammar Farooqui,
By this email I call upon you to do two things immediately :
(1) Initiate suo motu proceedings at once to get promptly released these 10,000 persons incarcerated in jail, including former Prime Minister Imran Khan, other PTI leaders, workers and supporters.
(2) Initiate suo motu proceedings and order holding elections as per Article 224(2) of Pakistan’s Constitution within 90 days of dissolution of Parliament.
If you cannot do these two things you might as well pack up, resign, and go home.
I am sending you my article which I wrote about your predecessor former CJP Bandial
I saw your oath taking on the internet, and was touched by your fine gesture of asking your wife to stand by your side while taking oath.
However, I must tell you that you will be put to two tests :
(1) You have taken a solemn oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes the fundamental rights of citizens of Pakistan, like the right to life and liberty.
As you know, a fascist reign of terror has been unleashed in Pakistan by the Establishment after the events of 9th May. Over 10, 000 people, including former Prime Minister Imran Khan and several PTI leaders and workers/supporters have been arrested, many ( including women ) beaten, brutally tortured, jailed in horrible conditions, killed, or simply ‘disappeared’.
It is therefore your solemn duty to get these 10,000 people released from jail forthwith, given adequate compensation, and those officials responsible for this outrage suitably punished.
(2) It is your duty to enforce the Constitution of Pakistan, since you have taken an oath to uphold it.
Article 224(2) thereof states that free and fair elections must be held within 90 days of dissolution of Parliament, and even President Arif Alvi has proposed this.
It is therefore your duty to enforce Article 224(2).
If you fail to meet these twin tests your name will be consigned to the dustbin of judicial history, and your 13 month long tenure as CJP will be marked as a big failure, like that of your predecessor Justice Bandial, who proved to be a spineless coward, who betrayed his oath, and was only concerned about his salary, perks and pension.
The Chief Justice of Pakistan, Umar Ata Bandial, retired yesterday, 16th September, 2023. What is his legacy ? How will he be remembered ?
No Judge is perfect. Some are short tempered and rude in court, some are dim witted and often cannot understand the lawyer’s argument, some know little law, some talk too much in court ( in violation of Bacon’s dictum ” A much talking judge is like an ill tuned cymbal ), some cannot get along with their colleagues, some go off to sleep even when the lawyer is arguing, etc
All these can be forgiven. But what cannot be forgiven is a Judge’s refusal to abide by his solemn oath to protect the rights of citizens under the Constitution. Let me explain.
In feudal times the King was supreme, and the people had no rights.
However, in his ‘Second Treatise on Civil Government’, written in 1690, the British political philosopher John Locke propounded the idea that the people had certain ‘natural rights’ ( e.g. life and liberty ) which even the King could not violate.
These were later incorporated in the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution of 1791, the Rights of Man proclaimed in 1789 by the French National Assembly, the Fundamental Rights in the Indian and Pakistan Constitution, etc.
What was the purpose of having these rights in the Constitution ? That was because it was felt that Parliament, though elected by the people, may sometimes turn autocratic and anti-people. Hence the people had to be protected not only against autocratic behaviour of the executive, but also the autocratic behaviour of the legislature.
When a Judge assumes office, he has to take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and since the Constitution incorporates certain fundamental rights of the people, that oath includes his undertaking to protect those rights.
Did Justice Bandial abide by his oath ? Not at all.
After the events of 9th May a reign of terror was unleashed in Pakistan, over 10,000 people arrested, beaten, tortured, jailed, killed or simply ‘disappeared’ in Pakistan, but Justice Bandial turned a Nelson’s eye to these atrocities and horrors, probably because all he had in mind was his salary, perks and pension.
He seemed to show courage by ordering Punjab Assembly elections on 14th May, but when it came to enforcing that order ( by taking contempt of court proceedings ) he beat a hasty retreat, thus making it clear to the Pakistan Establishment that the judiciary is only a paper tiger, that judges talk a lot but are not to be taken seriously.
When the Pakistan Govt said that they would not obey the Supreme Court’s orders, Bandial should have closed down all courts in Pakistan until the govt announced that it agreed to abide by court orders, but evidently he had no backbone, gumption or spunk to take such a bold, but necessary, step.
To sum up, Bandial’s legacy is of a weak, spineless, and cowardly judge, who betrayed his oath, and let his country and his institution down, causing misery to countless number of people.
One can tell him, as Cromwell told the Rump British Parliament on 20 April 1653 :
” You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately In the name of God, go ! “
There were some people in India who thought, like Neville Chamberlain at Munich in 1938, that strife can be avoided by appeasement. So they accepted the handing over of the site of the demolished Babri Masjid to right wing Hindu organisations for building a ‘bhavya’ Ram Mandir there, thinking this will end communal strife and tensions in India.
However, soon after demolition of Babri Masjid, cries were heard ”Abhi to yeh jhaanki hai, Kashi Mathura baaqi hai” ( i.e. ”This is only a glimpse, Kashi and Mathura remain” ). And sure enough demands for demolition of Gyanvapi Masjid in Varanasi, and Shahi Masjid in Mathura, and building ‘bhavya’ Shiva and Krishna temples on the sites, have been growing louder and louder.
But supposing these 2 mosques are also demolished, and Hindu temples built on the sites. Will the matter end there ? Surely not, for the communal pot must be kept boiling.
Now a demand has come for demolition of Shivalay Masjid and Teele Waali Masjid in Lucknow, and restoring the Hindu temples which originally stood there.
And some of those raising the demand want demolition of 50,000 masjids in India which were allegedly built by demolishing Hindu temples.
There are even demands for demolishing Qutub Minar, Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque, Jama Masjid, Delhi, Taj Mahal, Agra, Atala Devi Masjid in Jaunpur, etc since these were allegedly built by demolishing Hindu temples there.
The real issues like massive poverty, record and rising unemployment, skyrocketing price rise of food and other essential commodities, appalling level of child malnutrition ( every second child in India is malnourished, according to Global Hunger Index ), almost total lack of healthcare and good education for the masses, etc have all gone into the background.
As explained therein, the basic problems of India, which are socio-economic, can only be solved by rapid industrialisation and modernisation, but the developed countries will oppose this tooth and nail ( for the reasons given in the above video )
So our problems cannot be solved within the Constitutional framework but by a mighty, historical people’s revolution led by patriotic, modern minded leaders determined to rapidly industrialise and modernise the country, and give the people decent lives..
But historical experience shows, as pointed out in the articles below, that before an actual revolution there is always an ideological revolution, in which the weapons used are not swords, guns or bombs but ideas ( e.g. as it happened in France before the French Revolution of 1789 ).
Patriotic Indians, who want to help the country, must first understand all this.
The interest of people of the Indian subcontinent is to rapidly industrialise and become an industrial giant, like China, for only then can we abolish poverty, unemployment, hunger, and the other great evils which plague our society. On the other hand, the interest of the developed countries is that the Indian subcontinent must not be allowed to become an industrial giant, and must be kept backward ( for the reason I explained to Moeed Pirzada in his video interview ).
Thus, our interests directly conflict, and the developed countries, through their agents ( the rulers of India and Pakistan, and the politicians of both countries ) will do their level best to prevent us from becoming an industrial giant, and they are doing that by making our people fight each other on the basis of religion, caste, language, race, etc.
It is high time that our people understand this vile scheme, expose it to the public, and launch a mighty united people’s struggle ( in which tremendous sacrifices will have to be made ), under secular, modern minded leaders, for creating a just, modern political and social order in which all our citizens get decent lives
The 75th death anniversary of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, was observed on 11th September 2023.
On this occasion Moeed Pirzada, the eminent Pakistani journalist, has posted a vlog, given below
I respect Moeed who is bravely opposing the reign of terror unleashed in Pakistan by its army. However I regret that in his vlog he has totally distorted the truth.
Moeed says that Jinnah was an advocate of Constitutionalism and the rule of law, and he deplores the fact that these have broken down today in Pakistan, which is directly contrary to Jinnah’s vision.
What he overlooks is that Jinnah’s relentless advocacy of the bogus two nation theory which led to creation of Pakistan as an Islamic state, inevitably led to today’s situation in Pakistan and the destruction of the rule of law..
No doubt at one time Jinnah opposed separate electorates for Hindus and Muslims, and was called the ‘Ambassador of Hindu unity’. But that was at the early stage of his political career. Later, particularly after the Lahore Resolution of 1940 he relentlessly and fanatically demanded partition of India on communal lines, and he went all over India preaching this.
I have mentioned in several articles that in fact Partition of India in 1947 was a British swindle, and was the culmination of the British policy of divide and rule.
It was the British who were responsible for the Partition of India, with Jinnah as their main agent (though ultimately the Congress Party also acquiesed), and the purpose was to prevent India from emerging as a modern industrial giant ( as China has become ) and becoming a big rival to Western industry. I have explained this in detail in this interview I gave to Moeed recently
The same Jinnah who was secular and the ‘Ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity’ in the 1920s later became highly communal, and the main protagonist of the fraudulent two nation theory in the late 1930s.
Obviously he did this to satisfy his ambition to become the ‘Quaid-e-Azam’, regardless of the suffering his actions caused to both Hindus and Muslims. His call for Direct Action Day resulted in the terrible Calcutta killings in 1946. And, of course, the Partition resulted in the deaths of over 500,000 people, Hindu and Muslim, and the uprooting of millions from their native places. Did this cause any grief to Jinnah? Not at all. As long as his ambition was satisfied he was not bothered about the horrible miseries he had caused.
If one reads Jinnah’s speeches and his letters ( they have all been published) one will see that from the late 1930s onwards he relentlessly preached the 2 nation theory, that Hindus and Muslims are two separate nations, and therefore cannot co-exist together. This was of course humbug, and surely Jinnah knew that, since he had lived in Bombay for long, and must have interacted as a lawyer and otherwise with a lot of Hindus.
Moeed has harped on Jinnah being a Constitutional expert and upholder of the rule of law. What he omits to state is that creation of Pakistan as an Islamic state, which Jinnah relentlessly advocated, effectively destroyed constitutionalism and the rule of law.
This is because the Indian subcontinent has such tremendous diversity that a theocratic state in it simply cannot be stable, prosperous or governed by the rule of law.
Even if one creates an Islamic state, the question immediately arises what kind of Islam, Sunni or Shia, Deobandi or Barelvi, Wahabi, Salafi or Sufi ? Fights often occur between these denominations in Pakistan e.g. over the issue whether dargahs are islamic or unislamic. Mobs of religious extremists have often attacked minorities over concocted blasphemy allegations with impunity
Moeed has often said that the British Cabinet Mission proposal, which Jinnah’s Muslim League supported but Congress opposed, could have avoided Partition.
In reply it must be said firstly that the Cabinet Mission was just a ploy, since the British were determined to partition India before they left ( for the reason abovementioned ). In fact this was a typical British technique before they left a country e.g. partitioning Ireland, Palestine, Cyprus, etc.
Secondly, the proposal to give only defence, foreign affairs, currency and communications to the Central Govt meant that India would remain weak, and continue to be dominated indirectly by foreign powers.
A strong Central Govt led by modern minded leaders determined to rapidly industrialise and modernise the country is a sine qua non for the country’s progress.
I suspect that Moeed has in mind that one day he would like to return to Pakistan ( he presently lives in USA and dare not return immediately as he is persona non grata with the present Pakistan Establishment due to his strong support for Imran Khan ), but he knows that even if things change later and he returns he may be charged under section 123A Pakistan Penal Code which carries a sentence of upto 10 years jail for speaking against Partition.
So to avoid unpleasant consequences he must support the ‘Baba-e-Quom’, who caused so much misery to tens of millions
The eminent journalist and former Editor-in-Chief of ‘The Hindu‘, N Ram, has, in a recent interview, once again lamented on the attacks on media freedom in India
What N Ram forgets is that freedom of the media cannot be an end in itself, it can only be a means to an end, and that end must be raising the standard of living of the people, and giving them better lives.
If freedom of the media helps in attaining that end it should be supported, but not otherwise. Let me explain.
Historically, the media arose in England and France in the 17th and 18th centuries as an organ of the people against feudal oppression. At that time all the organs of power were in the hands of the feudal authorities. Hence the people had to create new organs which would represent their interests. The media ( which was then print media, and was often in the form of leaflets, pamphlets, etc ) was one of those powerful organs created by the people. In England, France and America the media represented the voice of the future, as contrasted to the established feudal organs which wanted to preserve the status quo.
Great writers like Voltaire and Diderot attacked religious bigotry, Rousseau attacked the entire feudal social and political system, Thomas Paine proclaimed the Rights of Man.
In my opinion the Indian media should likewise give leadership to the people in the realm of ideas, the way Voltaire, Rousseau, Thomas Paine, etc did when Europe was passing through its transitional period.
Today India is passing through a transitional period in its history, transition from feudal agricultural society to modern industrial society, a process which in my opinion will last another 20 years or so.
A transitional era is a very painful and turbulent period in history. If one reads the history of Europe from the 16th to the 19th centuries ( when Europe was passing through its transition) one finds that it was full of turmoil, wars, revolutions, social chaos, intellectual ferment,etc. It was only after going through this fire that modern society emerged in Europe.
India is presently going through that fire. We are going through a very painful period in our history, which I guess will last another 20 years or so.
In this transitional period the role of ideas becomes very important, and therefore the role of the media becomes very important, because the media is not an ordinary business which deals in commodities, it deals with ideas. It is the duty of all patriotic Indians, including media persons, to help shorten this transitional period and make it less painful, so that India becomes a modern, powerful, industrial power, with all its people ( and not just a handful) prosperous and leading decent lives, with food, employment, healthcare, education, etc available to the masses. For this it is essential for intellectuals, including the media, to promote modern and scientific ideas and combat backward and feudal ideas and practices like casteism, communalism and superstitions.
Instead of pandering to the low tastes of the Indian masses, our media should seek to uplift its intellectual level so as to make our masses part of enlightened India.
Today India’s main problems are socio-economic i.e. massive poverty in over 75% of our people, record and rising unemployment, almost total lack of proper healthcare and good education for the masses, farmers suicides, appalling level of child malnutrition ( half of our children are malnourished, according to Global Hunger Index ), etc. as well as rampant casteism, communalism, and widespread crimes against women, dalits and minorities, like dowry deaths, honour killings, lynching, etc.
Yet the media focuses on film stars, cricket, fashion parades, petty politics, astrology etc as if these are the real problems of the Indian people. Thus the real problems of the Indian people are sidelined or treated as non issues, and the non issues are projected as if they are the real issues. Sensationalism, trivialization, etc are the hallmarks of most of the Indian media today, obviously for T.R.P. rating and profits from advertisement revenues. Some years back I saw on TV that Aishwarya Bachchan had given birth to a girl, and read in a newspaper that Hema Malini’s younger daughter had been engaged. What great historical events !
A fashion show was organized sometime back in Mumbai by Lakme Fashion which was covered by 512 accredited journalists. In that fashion show, women were displaying cotton garments, while the men and women who grew that cotton were killing themselves one hour flight away in Vidharba due to their economic woes. Nobody told their stories except one or two journalists locally.
Does not the Indian media behave like Marie Antoinette who said that if the people do not have bread let them eat cakes ?
The Roman Emperors used to say that if you cannot give the people bread give them circuses. Much of our media seems to say, if you cannot give the people bread give them film stars and cricket. Cricket today is the opium of the Indian masses, doled out by the media to the gullible public.
Is the Indian media doing its patriotic duty ? No doubt there are some great media persons like P. Sainath who exposed farmers’ suicides, but what about others ? Filmstars and cricket dominate much of our media. Many TV channels show astrology, which is promoting superstitions, when the media should promote scientific ideas.
At a time when our nation should be united if we are to progress, a large section of the media ( particularly many TV channels ) promotes communalism by demonizing Muslims and portraying them as terrorists, fanatics, anti-national, etc.
Recently a lot of media coverage was on Chandraayan, the Indian rocket landing on the moon. But did any mediaperson raise the questions I raised in this article ?
The G20 Summit has been widely covered by our media, but has any journalist, including N Ram, asked how it will affect the lives of the Indian people ? Or was it just ‘aamadam, guftam, barkhaastam’, but zero haasildam ?
What people like N Ram forget is that freedom of speech and expression is a double edged sword. It can be used for promoting scientific and rational ideas, but it can also be used for spreading hatred, casteism, communalism and superstitions.
As mentioned before, freedom of speech and expression is only a means to an end, and cannot be an end itself. The end must be securing to our countrymen decent lives with a high standard of living, and that is possible only if India rapidly modernizes and industrializes.
Freedom of speech and expression must therefore advance and promote that end. It should not be treated as an absolute right. For instance, hate speeches which incite hatred between religious communities should be banned. Hitler used his freedom of speech under the Weimar Republic to propagate hatred of Jews, which ultimately led to the Holocaust, and much of the Indian media ( particularly TV ) uses its freedom to promote communalism.
The truth is that the
Indian Media has largely lost the people’s trust. Most of it has turned into what it is referred to as the “Godi Media” (patronized media), and instead of being the ‘Fourth State’ and serving the people, has simply become
part of the ‘First State’.
As regards the ‘liberal’ and ‘independent’ Indian media and journalists, I have mentioned about their inanity and superficiality in these articles, and have explained that there is really no difference in substance between the godi and the ‘liberal’ media :
