Have 9pm TV news debates become a platform for free bigotry?
"Had Rajiv Gandhi married a Nigerian woman and if she was not a white-skinned woman, would the Congress have then accepted her leadership?"
The sensational comment by BJP leader Giriraj Singh was played out extensively on news channels and became only the latest - after statements by Sadhvi Niranjan Jyoti's "Ramzada", "Haramzada", with anti-community undertones, and Sakshi Maharaj's sexist "four children for Hindu women" - to become the subject of the great platform of infotainment, the 9pm prime news debate across TV studios.
The BJP is, of course, not the only party with individuals having a patent on obnoxiousness, sexism, racism, communalism and general bigotry. Sharad Yadav, of JD(U), only recently made a comment in Parliament comparing north Indian and south Indian skin colours, trivialising the issue of skin prejudices by saying just because it was the Budget session it didn't mean he couldn't joke around and had to be serious.
In 2012, Congress MP from Surendranagar Soma Ganda Patel made casteist remarks on Modi at an election rally, referring to him in a derogatory way by his caste name "Ganchi", which is part of Other Backward Classes (OBCs). After the December 16 Delhi gang rape, Abhijeet Mukherjee of Congress had made a comment about women protestors, calling them "dented, painted."
The list is endless, and seemingly growing by the day. Social media is adding in some ways to the cacophony.
A number of views on Giriraj Singh's comment, sympathetic to him, say that the politician has only correctly pointed out the racism of Indians and should not be blamed for it. The videos are all subsequently played out on loop, followed by the studio "debates" with anchors as moderators.
Which brings us to the question of our times - to debate or not to debate? What impact are these "debates" - with anchors in part shouting down panelists, and in part jocular and insidious with the regular TV heads; going over the span of 40 minutes from the specific to the general; a curious blend of information and entertainment that seems unique to Indian news TV - having on the audience?
Are they serving to educate the masses on opinions out there, or are they only serving as a platform for free bigotry? Does a person of stature making a sexist or racist comment, played out and "debated" across news channels with pro- and- anti-stands and a neutral anchor presiding over, only reinforce or legitimise prejudices that people might hold, strengthening them as merely another valid point of view in a pluralistic society?
In a democracy and a healthy free press, people are free to voice their views, but is it also not the job of the press to do this in a responsible manner, so that it does not reinforce stereotypes and add to confusion and conflict in a delicate heterogenous society that is already reeling in many parts with issues of caste, class, sexism and other prejudices?
According to Dr Sameer Parikh, head of psychiatry, Fortis hospital, people should be free to give their views on societal issues, but care should be taken to distinguish personal views from societal views. This, according to him, is where the role of the press comes in. "It's alright for politicians to have a view, but for that view to be passed off as a societal view trivialises societal issues," he says. "It's important that the press asks the right questions - why someone has said it, what the agenda is, what the context is, and also to distinguish political views with an agenda from societal views by neutral observers and students of society, as well as the members of the society itself."
In a heterogeneous, pluralistic society such as ours, generalisations simply don't work - and yet, sweeping generalisations are what we hear on public platforms all the time. That Indians have a bias against dark skin colouring, for example, holds about as true as Hindus are vegetarian - depending on which part of the country you are in, and what type of Hindu you are. Points out Parikh: "Racism is also not just about black and white, it is also about how we treat foreigners, if our attitude towards them is hostile or negative in any way, that is also racism."
It is context which defines sexism and racism, and in a heterogenous society this context is changing all the time. To report, which is to give upfront the context, the who, what, why, when and where - the tenets of journalism, is far more important than the views expressed, adds Parikh: "Correct contextualisation is reportage and without it, debate will just add fuel to the fire."
He says while political figures are free to have their personal views, and there is no harm in having debates where they are on panels (as people want to get to know political figures through their views), it is important to establish that political views are not societal views, and only reflect the views of that individual, which may not even be supported by the larger party they belong to or the society as a whole, which may not be in agreement with those views."
The media's role is to walk a fine, self regulated balance while reporting or even debating a comment. "The tendency to represent political views, which have a societal flavouring as well as an agenda and are directed at an adversary, as societal views only add fuel to the fire. A political comment does not always have to be given a societal meaning and must be restricted only to the context of the individual making it."
He also cautions that while many comments require a debate, not every comment needs a debate. These are, of course, precautions that require fine editorial processes in place by news organisations. However, with social media, people can also apply the rules to online debate. In some cases, when watching a debate on TV, the viewers can also ask the questions that news channels may gloss over - either deliberately for sensationalism and TRP runs or out of plain journalistic incompetence - What is the context of the comment? Who made it? What is the person's professional agenda and personal background, has his or her party supported the view?
These are all questions that will have different answers at different times, and it is important to keep them in mind before making generalised sweeping comments on "Indian society."