Manic Media

While everyone is out appreciating the role of media in the recent "Cash for votes" scandal and the ISI findings, I think the media is also responsible for some damaging measures.

There is no dispute that decorum is the last thing seen in the Parliament today. In times like this, it is up to the media to highlight the sporadic gentlemanly gestures of the Parliamentarians and uphold them as the right way to proceed. Unfortunately, the media, at least in my opinion, is not only doing nothing like this, but also doing the opposite. For instance, when Rahul Gandhi spoke after the Nuclear deal votes, he complimented ex-prime minister Vajpayee's vision and execution of the Nuclear tests. He continued to suggest that prime minister Manmohan Singh also shared this vision and lauded his efforts to get the Nuclear deal through, which, in his opinion, would go a long way in alleviating the power shortage prevalent throughout India. This, for anyone, would be a nice gesture - a person from the ruling party praising another from the opposition, acknowledging his colleague's work. Without getting into the way the politicians should conduct themselves, I will move on to why the media was irresponsible. The news article about this was titled "Rahul 'charms' everyone after votes". What is the point of such a title? What is the point of such an article? Do they want to sarcastically remark that Rahul Gandhi was being sycophantic? This is an instance where I thought the media was cynical and went astray, shunning its responsibility. The reason why media has to police itself is that Indian politics is in a very bad shape, and everyone knows that. It is also known that media is one of the most effective ways to influence a lot of people. Given these, the media should applaud Rahul's nicety, irrespective of what his intentions were, and hold such instances as worth emulating by politicians to be, if not for the present politicians. Being cynical helps no one. And for the media, being cynical is a cardinal sin! And for the record, I am not a supporter of Rahul Gandhi.

Another article was titled - "Inflation hits 12%, but Indians OK with Income tax". I was stunned to see this as a headline. What would anyone think after seeing this headline? Are they suggesting that inflation hitting 12% is a pretext on which Indians can try to evade taxes? Outraged, I went on to read the article to see that they were actually talking about this years earnings for the government through income tax, and comparing it to the previous years, discussing the reason for the difference, the steps the government should be taking to catch people who evade income tax and reduce the tax on the middle class etc. The article as such was a good one. But the headline nevertheless was outrageous. And the headline is like the first impression. And sadly, "Don't judge a book by it's cover" is hardly followed in today's world. So, the headline really matters, and this one in particular, was a fairly irresponsible one.

Next comes Page 3. I think it is the shallowest, the most materialistic, the least ethical section, for it brings the party-sleep-shop-eat-party lifestyle of morally handicapped, rich and famous people to your home and thereby encourages you to have a similar lifestyle. Having said that, it is necessary to balance the more serious things making news. I understand. But what I don't understand is why what Darsheel Safary thinks about "girls, Kareena and six-pack abs" would be interesting to people! He might be a bunny toothed sympathy evoking kid, and he might have acted pretty well in his debut movie, but what can people get out of this?

And then there are glaring mistakes like wrong dates, like this one from a channel that won the best news channel award (In fact, this was aired on August 21st, 2008)! But this, I guess, is not as bad as the others I have highlighted.

Though the media has made it's mark with it's sting operations, citizen journalists sections, environment watch catalogues, it has to still be careful not to be carried away and publish articles or air reports with any sign of cynicism, with misguiding headlines.

Rich and developed...

There is an advantage of being born into an aristocratic family - you can afford to not work and do whatever it is you want to do. But, being born into a not-so-rich family will preclude this option, and if you still choose this option, you will be called a useless hopeless loser.

While everyone realizes this, what they fail to realize is the following, which, in my opinion, is an immediate analogue to the above.

There is an advantage of being born in a developed country - you can afford to think about yourself throughout your life and still be considered a successful citizen, patriotic even. But, being born in a developing country will preclude this option, and if you still choose to not bother about your country, you will not necessarily be called a useless selfish loser, sadly...

Stated differently, being born in a developing country inherently puts you in a situation where the quality of your life, in terms of the way you conduct yourself, the way and the number of people you influence, is required to be exemplary. If I can call a developing country a worse place to be than a developed country, it is like the expectation is more from you if you are in the worse place. But then again, every place went through this period where a few generations had to stand up against their challenges and slog to push the country into the 'developed' bed so that the following generations could afford to doze comfortably.

So, I guess the point I am trying to make is that being born in a developing country, we cannot afford to put ourselves before the country, we cannot afford to be near-sighted, to not think about what we can do for the country, to just sit in our living rooms and rant about the government's flawed policies, to see the consequences of the divisive politics in play today and not do anything about it, to see the petrol prices rising and not try to brainstorm for workarounds, to see our cities being bombed and remain silent when we see the government do nothing about it, to see our institutes which were once the best schools to learn being ruined and keep quiet. We cannot afford the status quo... This is our time, we are the generation required to work hard to push our country ahead in the right direction, we are the ones required to take up this daunting task, we are the ones required to make the sacrifice, the ones required to revert to our principles, the ones who have the opportunity to do things that will make our future generations thank us, the ones who have the chance to change the way things work, the ones to push India into the 'developed' bed. We are the 'chosen ones'...

Why So Serious?

I believe "The Dark Knight" deserves the top spot it has earned on IMDb. This post is more a testimony to the characters Batman and Joker themselves than to Chris Nolan and Heath Ledger.

Though I don't like superheroes, Batman has grown to be my favourite. The reason is his strength - his anonymity. It is the purest form of service - to fight for justice and to expect nothing in return, not even recognition. To be able to satisfy oneself with the only fact that justice is being reinforced. To be called a wealthy industrialist with no big concern for the city when actually risking one's life for the betterment of the city. He is an embodiment of service in its purest form.

And that is exactly where the Joker scores. The kind of lunatic who could do outrageous acts for no reason, commit crime not for money or power, but for the establishment of anarchy, for reigning chaos. To fight against justice and expect nothing in return. To be able to satisfy oneself with the only fact that lawlessness is the only law. To be called a lunatic, a freak, when actually risking everything for what one believed in, and rightly so, for the Joker's doctrines are those of a lunatic, a freak. He is the true 'Professor Chaos'.

As the Joker himself says, the conflict is like when an irresistible force meets an immovable object. The concept kind of reminds me of the movie 'Seven' which also has a similar theme. But, unlike there, the Batman makes the Joker lose by losing himself, by sacrificing his options to prove his vigilante image wrong - another point that reinforces the Joker's claim that the Batman 'completes' him. The underlying theme is heavily inter weaved with ironies and seemingly paradoxical situations. The whole Batman-Joker battle has been elevated to an ideological stratagem, and that is what makes the movie brilliant. And Chris Nolan has proved his genius thus. But, it would be unfair not to mention Ledger's owning of the role of the Joker. The body language, the dialogue delivery are exemplary, perfect even. A must watch. Probably more than once!

Long time no see...

Usually, the reason I am out of the blogosphere is because I don't have much to talk about. But, this time, it has been because I have too many things to talk about. In fact, I cannot list the things I would like to talk about - starting from the education system in India, to the traditional Indian mindset, from the Nuclear deal to Dhoni sitting out of a Test series, from coalition politics to marriage and life. But, I have refrained from writing here as I have felt the need to organize my thoughts before I scribble them here - I am thinking I should have a personal blog where I could scrap my thoughts often, organize them and put them here. But, I guess that will be too much work, and knowing me, I would rather wait till I am more organized in my mind...

Cyberchondriac?

When I first put up this status message, I never expected it to turn into another post on my blog... But here's the interesting thing. I came across this new word - Cyberchondriac, somewhere on the net. And I learnt that it referred to a person who suspected that he had a certain illness after reading about it on the internet. Now, the first time I read that, it rang a bell. I have done that on numerous occasions. For instance, I believe I have Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD), and the belief originated after I read the Wiki article on it. There have been other cases which I will safely omit here. But, it seemed fairly clear to me that I was a Cyberchondriac.

I took an instant liking to the word, and because I believed I was one, I put it up as my status message on GMail. And then, it struck me... I was suspecting that I am a Cyberchondriac after reading about Cyberchondriacs on the internet! And that, in my opinion, is testimonial enough to me being one... The subtle recursion, or positive feedback associated with the word left me fascinated, and so the post.

Births and lives...

I was kind of outraged when I saw this news article on IBNLive। There is no doubt that this kid has had a birth not usual among her classmates. There is also no doubt that whatever compensation her parents were supposed to get (which I guess is for trying out something that wouldn't be tried normally especially in the superstitious days of the 80's) they should. I sympathize her for whatever promise has not been kept. But, does that mean this girl can proclaim herself to be "सब्से अलग"? I mean, it was courageous on part of her parents. But, how can she say since she was the first Indian test-tube baby, she expects a life out of the ordinary? I think there are a lot of people in a similar situation. It is right on part of the media to highlight this issue as an example of the government's negligence but totally unacceptable as an example of a 'special' life going awry, which seems to be the motive behind the article.

Phew!

Its been a tiring quarter, and being on the other side of it makes me glad. If there is one thing I have learnt this quarter, it is that one shouldn't take four courses in a quarter.

Being jobless after a long time, I have sped through the first three seasons of 24 in record time. Have also watched a number of movies. But, two movies impressed me particularly - Philadelphia and Jodhaa Akbar.

Philadelphia was quite different from the movies I have seen recently. The story was backed by a strong theme - highlighting the discrimination against homosexuals and people suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, and was strengthened by some amazing acting by both Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington. One of those movies that would've forced me to think about Law had I seen it before I delved into Science - "Every now and again, not often, but occasionally, you get to be a part of justice being done. That really is quite a thrill..." - Inspiring!

Jodhaa Akbar was good in its own way. Though there were a few things that could have been done better, the message the story had, and its relevance to contemporary India almost obscured the shortcomings. Whether it is historically sound or not, the story reminds people of, what has today become one of the very badly needed qualities in a man - religious tolerance. That morality and humanity supersede religious formalities has been upheld finely by Akbar's character.

I like movies that teach me something, movies with morals. And both these movies reminded me that I had forgotten one very important essence of life in the diverse world I live in today - tolerance...