A case of misguided National Pride & Patriotism

I went for a movie last week to the local multiplex and not for the first time was peeved at the obligation of having to stand up for the National Anthem before the movie was screened. Now I am not peeved at the anthem itself but peeved at the fact that we have to go through the same ritual time and again without any sense or logic. I have never understood what purpose it solves to play the National Anthem everytime one goes to the cinema to be entertained. Does it remind us to be patriotic? I don't think we need to be reminded at a cinema of all places whether we are patriotic to our country or not.

We used to sing the National Anthem everyday at the end of school. But I think at that level it helps to only inculcate a sense of oneness amongst the diverse backgrounds from which students come to. Even then looking back I think everyday was one too many. Coming back to the point, I don't see how playing the anthem in a cinema hall helps generate patriotism. For one I don't believe in patriotism in the form of which many people seem to show it in. We are past a time when mere chest thumping and rabble rousing means one is a patriot or not.

I believe more in aspects like civil etiquette and discipline in public places. The people who would slap somebody who "dare" not stand up in a cinema while the national anthem is being played are probably the same who will chatter away loudly on their mobile phones while the movie is running. I know which one I will find more offensive and it does not involve the national anthem. The people who vandalise public property and behave indecently in public are the very same who will take "insult" to someone sitting while the National Anthem plays out. I think their is more pride to be had in having a better behaving public in civil life than merely standing up in a cinema hall for a tune.

Another aspect of misguided national pride we have a lot in India is taking credit for anything remotely Indian and claiming ownership over it. Case for example Slumdog Millionaire which was essentially a British made film about universal themes like love and hope with the protagonist hailing from the slums of Mumbai. Parts of the film industry and the media called it an achievement for India. They couldn't be further from the truth. I think the bottom was hit the moment the Congress Government claimed credit for creating an environment where people from the slums can become millionaires. Well the British can then take credit for having had the Raj in India which enabled Ashutosh Gowarikar's Lagaan become a huge hit and reach the final nominations at the Oscars!! You gotto be kidding me.

Another way we delude ourselves is being proud and happy at the achievements of expatriate Indians whose actions have not and will never benefit us directly or indirectly in any way. Commendable the acts they may be. Take someone for example like Bobby Jindal. The only thing Indian about him is his ethnic origin. As a potential leader of the Republican Party in the US, he is as American as George W Bush was. Do we ever hear the Italians going gaga over the fact that our country's de facto ruler is Sonia Gandhi? Last I heard, no!! So why the brouhaha when a Sanjay Malakar (or whatever his name was) reaches American Idol. He is as Indian as we are American. Which is hardly anything.

Of Breaking News' and Exclusives

The effort to blog more frequently has resumed. Ironically when its the most hectic time of the year for me. Its 11 in the night as I write, a couple of burgers and a beer await me and we still have about atleast 2 hours of work left in the cellar. And yes I started at 9 this morning and will do tomorrow as well, quite early for my standards. I will be more than happy to swap places with anybody who thinks winemaking is romantic at this very moment in time.

Moving on. The fine line between journalism and entertainment for Indian news channels, both English and regional, has been blurred for quite a while now. Especially for the Hindi news channels where the news tends to range from exaggerated hum drum affairs to bizarre sensationalism. The English news channels were fairly news centric in the time of Star News (before it went Hindi) and NDTV. But with the entry of Times Now, CNN-IBN and a handful of others, there is a tendency to sensationalism and repetition across channels.

Case for example, last night there was an interview of Home Minister PC Chidambaram being aired on NDTV billed as an exclusive. The topics of discussion ranged from security arrangements for elections to IPL clashing dates to the attach on SL cricketers in Pakistan. Fairly routine stuff, nothing you wouldn't find in the morning newspaper as well. Now just I was finished seeing it and switched over the CNN-IBN, lo and behold, there was none other than PC Chidambaram himself being interviewed on the same issues and again billed as an exclusive, a point driven home by Rajdeep Sardesai himself. Now certainly 2 channels cannot carry the same exclusive on the same day, on the same issues and following each other on the night. My understanding of an exclusive news story is one available to noone but that particular news channels or media.

The other part is the breaking news factor. I think many mundane news stories are billed as supposedly breaking news' probably to gain eyeballs at any particular time of the day. Breaking news was meant to be a kind of a showstopper equivalent. Mind you there are the actual ones, but there are far too many irrelevant ones. Another point is the lack of perspective sometimes. Every Indian cricket win is taken is a monumental event and every loss a disaster. There no middle ground. Experts, analysts, politicians, sportsmen, celebrities, victims, perpetrators, etc are put on the spot and forced to pick sides with no room for a middle ground. A bit like George W Bush's "with us or against us" approach to fighting terror. There can only be black and white, no shades of grey. Atleast when people are asked to vote on a question via SMS's. So many times it turns into a trial by media. Comes

I must say Times Now has quite specialised in a daily dose of political bull fighting between the Congress and the BJP. The issues may be different, but the daily speakers on both sides tend to remain the same and the debate is a "holier than thou" type rather than one of logic.

One of the aspects about news reporting and TV journalism that fascinated me in my time in the UK was the funding structure of the BBC. It was totally funded by the public via TV licenses. So they need not advertise directly for revenue to fund the channel. So the mandate the is to provide news and reporting completely unbiased, impartial and without having to worry about where the money is going to come from. The BBC website I have seen recently have started advertising, but I am pretty sure the bouquet of channels do not. So its fair to conclude that a documentary or news being shown on BBC has higher chances of being authentic and accurate compared to a channel funded purely by advertisers money.

Advertising money is in my opinion one of the reasons why most Indian news channels focus more on what the people want to see and hear as news rather than accurately reporting the daily happenings around. Yes, there are some thought provoking news reports, debates and documentaries, but I am talking about the overall scenario here. In India, 3 things sell the most. Politics, Bollywood & Cricket. Well we can add religion to the list as well. So invariably a high number of news reports include one of the above topics which are then even further spiced up and presented as entertainment. Ad revenue is dictated by TRP's and as a result news reporting is turning into a medium of entertainment to garner as many eyeballs as possible.

There's always hope till the next 'Breaking News and/or Exclusive'......

Ps.. Azeem, if you are reading, thanks for pushing some life into the blog. And it almost 4 hours of work since I ate!!