The Hindu : Media and the public sphere

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Jan 12, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Media and the public sphere

By K.N. Panikkar

The outcome of the struggle between secularism and communalism to a large extent depends upon the manner in which the media intervene in the public space.

AMONG THE institutions that contribute to the make-up of a public sphere in society, the media perhaps perform the most critical function. In the transactions in the public sphere, the media are not a neutral participant or an impassioned chronicler. Instead they are either a legitimiser of the status quo or an innovator of the existing social equilibrium. The conflict or collaboration of the media with forces that attempt to colonise the public sphere materialises in this context. The mutual relationship between the state and the media, either as oppositional or as complementary, is influenced, among others, by the nature of intervention of the state in the public sphere. The former goes back to the 18th century when the Bengal Gazette trained its guns on the British administration and was mauled in the process. Since then, the endeavour of the press to imbue the public space with a critical culture has been consistently curtailed by the state, both by legislative interventions and by administrative interference.

For liberal democratic practice such measures of the state have serious implications, as restrictions on the media are bound to affect the ambience of the public sphere. The Indian intelligentsia realised this as early as the beginning of the 19th century when Rammohan Roy, acclaimed as the father of modern India, publicly denounced the attempts of the British government to curb the freedom of the press. Following the lead set by Rammohan, freedom of expression and civil liberties became two key issues of the anti-colonial struggle. In fact, the history of both the national movement and of the press can be read as the history of the struggle for these two rights. The legacy of this struggle has great contemporary value, as the freedom of the press and civil liberties continue to be under strain due to the restrictions imposed by the state. The recent action of the Tamil Nadu Government against , both in its nature and execution, is perhaps the most glaring example. But violations of the freedom of expression are taking place in varying degrees all over the country, particularly against those scribes whose reports adversely affect the dominant forces in society or expose the initiatives of the state, which are not in the national interest.

Herbert Schiller, a theoretician of repute, has ascribed to the media the role of mind managers. Implicit in this description is the ideological function of the media in society. As such, multiple social consequences could ensue as a result of the intervention of the media. For instance, it could generate a sense of fatalism. It could also create non-conformism. The first relegates the media to the status of an adjunct of the dominant interests whereas the second provides them the possibility of influencing the course of history. There are several occasions in the life of a nation when the media are called upon to make a choice. In India such a situation arose in the 1990s when a massive, emotionally orchestrated religious mobilisation was attempted around the issue of the construction of a temple at Ayodhya. The response of a large section of the media to this coercive and anti-democratic movement was ambivalent. Many chose to swim with the tide. In justification the editor of a reputed national newspaper advanced the rationale that the media are bound to reflect the sentiments of society. By doing so he was renouncing the leadership role of the media — of that of an intellectual, if you like — which the nationalist press had so admirably performed. It also relegated the media to the status of a helpless victim. The consequences were grievous. Such a sense of fatalism led a section of the media uncritically to accept the communal discourse, and some others to remain as neutral observers and `objective' reporters. The intellectual atmosphere thus generated by the media considerably contributed to the undermining of the secular and the success of the communal. was among the few honourable exceptions who boldly and consistently championed the secular cause.

During the last two decades, the Indian media have undergone a sea change, particularly in their intellectual content and cultural ambience. There are two sources from which the transformation draws sustenance and inspiration: one emanating from outside and the other internally generated. The first, which seeks to subordinate the media to global control, comes with a variety of promises — of development, technology and internationalism — extremely appealing to the modernising quest of the middle class. The baggage also includes access to the advanced frontiers of knowledge and the cultural avant garde. The political and intellectual discourse, which it might generate, is likely to influence the nature and direction of social transformation. Whether it would lead to an intellectual climate in favour of a mode of development that may not address the problems of the nation is a fear entertained in many quarters. Even without actual control, the Indian mainstream media appear to have succumbed to the cultural imperatives of a developmental paradigm that leaves out the poor from its concerns.

Internally, the media confront a powerful communal discourse generated by a variety of political, social and cultural organisations. The media, at least a major section of them, have over the years internalised the logic to such an extent that it has become the instrument of its reproduction. If communal stereotypes like `Muslim rule' and `Hindu rule' or the `fanaticism of the Muslims' have become part of the common sense, the public discourse created by the media, even if unconsciously by some, is to a large extent responsible. The communal categories are rampant in reporting and communal assumptions inform news analysis, even in newspapers that are otherwise secular. The colonial ideologue, James Mill, who characterised Indian society in terms of religious communities in conflict still appears to exert influence on our minds.

Consequently, the secular space in the media has considerably shrunk. Not because of the secular-communal divide that indeed exists but more because the communal has succeeded in replacing the secular. The logic of the communal is increasingly becoming respectable in almost every newspaper establishment. The legitimacy thus gained by the communal, often through crude and false representations, helps to change the popular commonsense about key concepts like nationalism, secularism and communalism. This tendency has considerably impaired the fundamental commitment of the media to truth. The truth, however elusive it is, is not an avoidable luxury, as is believed at least by certain sections of the media, particularly the communal.

Despite these developments, the media are privy to an intense ideological struggle that Indian society is currently witnessing, between secularism on the one hand and communalism on the other. Secularism is the source of India's inclusive nationalism, based on historical experience and enriched by the anti-colonial struggle. Communalism, on the other hand, draws upon religious and cultural exclusivism and seeks to deny all that is meaningful in our tradition. While secularism stands for mutual respect, togetherness and enlightenment, communalism is characterised by intolerance, hatred and ignorance. The contradictions between the two have set the stage for contestation in the public sphere, either for its eventual secular reclamation or its communal transformation. The struggle between secularism and communalism is not purely a fight for political power, but a clash between two different systems of values, both trying to bring the public sphere under their hegemonic control. The outcome to a large extent depends upon the manner in which the media intervene in the public space and mould its character. On it also depends whether the Republic will be able to preserve its foundational principles. Hence the importance of the media remaining secular. Being secular, however, does not mean being insensitive to tradition. In the past Indian intellectuals have invoked philosophical traditions like Vedanta to erase social divisions and appealed to universalism to bring about religious unity. Taking a leaf out of the past, the media can contribute to the ongoing efforts to halt the unfortunate tendency of communal appropriation of the past by adopting a critical but creative attitude towards tradition.

Over the years, the character of the public sphere in India has undergone a qualitative change. There is a discernible decline in the intellectual content of its transactions. Moreover, the culture of public discussion it promotes has lost much of its sanity and social purpose; the self rather than society seems to dominate in it. As a consequence, informed interventions by institutions like the media have become exceptions rather than the rule, in contrast to the era of the national movement when such interventions contributed to the emergence, evolution and vitality of the public sphere. The resulting intellectual poverty of the public sphere has made it vulnerable to the influence of forces seeking to undermine the fundamental principles that have moulded the character of the nation. Although the media currently function under severe compulsions, both ideological and financial, a critical introspection is in order.

(Based on the author's Guest of Honour address at the 125th anniversary celebrations of in Thiruvananthapuram.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Election gear on economy

Unsound solution

Media and the public sphere

Vandalism and preservation