The Pope is in the news for the wrong reason. It is rather unfortunate. I don¿t know whether the remarks made by the Pope during his address at the University of Regenburg on September 13, are right or wrong, but the wave of anger they generated in the Muslim community all over the world, leading to a demand of apology from him suggests that it was indiscreet on his part to have made such references. As I prepare this, news comes that the Pontiff offered an indirect apology which fails to cut ice and The New York Times says in an editorial that the Pope must issue a ?deep and persuasive apology?. The end to the controversy doesn¿t seem to be in sight. Indeed, sad and embarrassing for the most powerful and influential religious head. It is an irony that no such upheavals are witnessed when Ayatollahs and clerics issue death sentences and fatwas as a routine.
Well, how did Muslims or for that matter anybody come to know of this? Of course through the media. After seeing the predicament of the Holy father, one may be tempted to argue that if the media had not reported the matter, this virtual confrontation between the Pontiff and the Islamic world could have been avoided.
But the problem is, can we expect the media to accept that argument, that too at a time when transparency has become the buzz word, very much patronized by politicians and journalists alike?
Although, the word ?transparency? has not been defined and is as vague as secularism, it is safe to assume that it refers to telling or exposing everything without concealing anything and by implication telling the truth which is considered the best of all virtues. But is the media absolutely transparent? No, not at all. It allows only those news items that suit its philosophy and downplays or blacks out those that are otherwise. Like the blind, they see only what they want to see. We have some newspapers, which, as a matter of policy do not criticize the Left; observe utmost restraint when reporting news related to terrorism unleashed by Islamic fundamentalists all over the world, and operate a law of Omerta on issues related to the sinister conversion activities carried out by Christian missionaries.
When the principle of transparency is given a go by for the sake of ideology and political affiliations, why can¿t the media in the larger interests of the state, consider assessing the damage potential of any news report before filing it. This is not to be construed as a suggestion to adopt a policy of suppressio veri and suggestio falsi. Of late many articles have appeared in the print media that might trigger some kind of resentment in some communities, with no chance of it taking the shape of violent protests as witnessed in the Danish Cartoon incident or Pope¿s remarks.
?Visible Dalit and Invisible Brahmin? of Prof Sanjay, lamenting over monopoly by upper caste Hindus and inadequate representation of backward classes, women and minorities in journalism is likely to be the one belonging to this class. As long as there is no evidence to prove that such lopsided representation is the result of a selective discrimination against these sections, and they are being ignored as a class, the writer need not have any apprehensions about the caste composition of journalists. The names of the journalists in the English Print media and electronic media (The Hindu, Times of India, The Indian Express, NDTV, CNN-IBN, Aaj Tak) suggest that they are mostly Hindus and may belong to the ?upper caste? even, but never did they betray in their writings any bias. If at all there is any bias, it is towards the downtrodden and the minorities especially the Muslims even at the cost of the majority as they are afraid that taking sides with the majority might earn them the tag of being a Hindu fundamentalist. And it is this inability to call a spade a spade that should worry Prof Sanjay and not the caste composition. A careful study of the writings of the journalists from the backward classes and minority religions proves that they show no reservations against identifying themselves with the caste/religion of their birth and express themselves unambiguously and fearlessly against the upper castes and the majority religion.
Prof. Yogendra Yadav¿s article seeking to prove statistically that India is not a predominantly vegetarian country belongs to a category which while not serving much purpose cause distress to some communities by hurting their sentiments.
At this point, we seem to have landed in a dilemma, not knowing whether to expect the media to tell/speak the truth or not?
May be such a situation was experienced or envisaged earlier by Vidura - the embodiment of virtue, the most pragmatic and unbiased of all the Mahabharata characters - and he himself offers a solution in the form of the advice ?Satyam bruyat, Priyam bruyat; Na bruyat Satyamapriyam?. Translated, it means ?tell the truth; tell that is pleasant; do not tell the truth that is unpleasant?.
There is however a word of caution lest this quote should be interpreted as a blanket permission to tell lies. A logical interpretation may be that, truth might be masked if such a thing is in the best interests of the state. Of course this explanation applies only to mundane world with materialistic progress/achievements as the ultimate objective and not to spiritualism where the goal is entirely different.
As we are living in a materialistic world, where pragmatism rather than emotion and feelings driven by adrenalin hold the key, the advice of Vidura is perhaps relevant.
T Siva Rama Krishna Sastry
Hyderabad
17 September, 2006