Godmen, media and the masses

BY MAYA RANGANATHAN| IN Media Practice | 10/03/2010

Chennai: Almost a week since it hit 24/7 news and subsequently the newspaper headlines, l’affaire Paramahansa Nityananda is getting murkier and murkier. Was the video of the ‘swami’ romping with a woman shown on TV doctored? Was it the handiwork of a disillusioned devotee or was it an exercise in blackmail by an avaricious or vengeful actress? Or was it the work of a good samaritan who would like the world to know that ‘swamis’ have feet of clay?

Sun News, the 24-hour Tamil news channel of the Sun Group telecast on March 2, 2010 a special report on Paramahansa Nityananda, a young spiritual leader who runs the ‘Dhyanapeetam’ and Life Bliss Foundation and reportedly enjoys a following across 40 countries. Summing up the clever use of communication technologies to build an image and subsequently a world-wide spiritual empire, the report aired clippings that were allegedly shot in Nityananda’s bedroom over two days. Nothing short of porn, the clipping showed a young woman dance attendance on the ‘swami’ before joining him in bed. The You Tube clipping has now been removed owing to ‘violation of terms’.

While there is no denying that the revelation that the ‘swami’ who offered ‘Guaranteed Solutions for Lust, Fear, Worry’ failed to conquer his own lust should have come as a blow beneath the belt for his devotees, it is a little difficult to understand the mob fury that has followed the airing of the tape. If we as people were to take to the streets and destroy property to vent our ire against our leaders or idols not living up to the images they create or meet our expectations however modest they may be, surely we would now be surrounded by ruins.

If indeed the intention was to show that the self-styled swami was no better than the yet-to-be ‘liberated’ souls he counselled, the clipping amply served its purpose. Almost around the same time yet another TV channel aired a sequence of the Kalki Bhagwan, another self-styled god man based now in Andhra Pradesh watching some young ‘drugged’ damsels dancing and getting intimate. The police stepped in to provide protection to the ashram against irate villagers.

This is not the first time that god men have landed in the news for wrong reasons. Reports about mysterious happenings in Kalki ashrams had hit the press some 15 years ago.  Interestingly, the occasional bad press caused nothing more than a dent in the image, as they were overpowered by advertisements in magazines and hour-long sponsored programmes telecast, some of them in those very same TV channels that reported scandals in their news programmes. What was different this time perhaps was the fact that the common man got to see it all in his living room, neatly edited and set to a background score with a voice-over throwing in the details that he might otherwise miss. While this no doubt underscores yet again the power of the visual medium, it also draws attention to some issues related to Indian media.

This piece is not to justify the unscrupulous acts of people in high places, and betraying the faith of the masses indeed is most unscrupulous, but to take a good look at the way media dynamics operate in India. With cameras shrinking to the size of a pen head, smuggling one into a private place is no great achievement, but what begs question is just what justifies it. It is not clear what prompted the Nityananda operation but how ethical is the media in sneaking into a person’s private space, based on suspicion that may or not be proved right? It is another matter that other charges are now being mounted on Nityananda, including the mysterious death of a Canadian national in his ashram.

God men have made millions out of the masses employing media technologies but is not the media doing much the same? The video clipping was aired almost through the night and was taken off the air only after a slap on the wrist by Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M Karunanidhi. In a press conference on March 4, 2010 when he announced that a panel would be set up to probe into the matter, he advised media to draw a line between obscenity and public good and  also not to take law into its hands. Meanwhile, Nityananda used yet another communication technology and despatched a CD to media houses in which he stated that he had after all done nothing illegal and would issue a detailed statement later.

By then the damage had been done. CDs of the clipping sold like hot cakes in Chennai markets. The identity of the actress had been revealed, purportedly to warn people not to fall victims to such sweet-talking godmen who offer solutions for all emotional problems. But what eludes understanding is, if the purpose of the sting operation was to unmask Nityananda, how relevant is the identity of the woman who he dallied with? Would not it have sufficed to show that he had his share of carnal desires without identifying who he chose to satiate them with?

In the melee, what the media seems to have forgotten is that it has played a tremendous role in pole-vaulting these godmen into the exalted positions that they came to occupy. Nityananda owes his popularity in no small measure to the Tamil popular weekly ‘Kumudam’ which ran his column for weeks titled ‘Kadhavai thira; kaatru varum’ (roughly translated as ‘Open the door to let in the fresh air’)

Further investigations may prove the death knell of god men; it may spur the government to watch such organisations with a hawk eye; it may hopefully make the people more wary of placing their trust on those who claim to have superhuman powers. But will it make the media less humble and not take on the role of judge, jury and executioner?