The "responsible" Indian media

The Indian media has become a pro at asking the most redundant and stupid questions. Two instances come to mind-

First, when Pratibha Patil was nominated as the UPA presidential candidate out of the blue, the question being asked by the news channels was "Is India ready for a female president?". I would like to know what the question means. What sort of answer does it warrant? Are we supposed to roll up our sleeves and say, "yeah...bring it on baby, we're ready for you" or stutter and fumble and mumble "uh...umm...I dunno...uh ..uh...I'm not sure..", ask for a few days/months/years to prepare ourselves, after which we will take a deep breath and say "Okay, now we're ready!" What does it mean when they ask us whether we're prepared. How does one prepare oneself for a woman president?

The whole emphasis on her being a woman itself annoys me greatly. I mean, her name has been nominated and no one has any idea about her credentials or what she was doing for a living till now. But no, all that is not important. All the news was about her being a woman. I have to be honest. I keep away from politics largely. Consequently, I don't know many politicians. So I didn't know who she was. I had to Google for more information on the woman who would possibly become the president of the country of which I am a citizen. The least that the news channels could have done was to have "quick facts about PP's life" running on the bottom of the screen when they were debating the goodness of fit between a woman, a president and the nation's state of preparedness for the two of them put together.

The other really idiotic discussion that a leading news channel- I think it was NDTV- was having was sparked by the kidnapping and murder of a young boy by some people he came in contact with through a social networking site on the Internet. The big question was "do social networking sites need greater safeguards"? Fantastic. This is another example of how human beings create something and then give it more power than their own rational thought- for other examples refer to social customs and practices. I am talking of machines, inanimate objects created by man, to be used the way man chooses to, their existence and functionality completely dependant on man.

Questions like "is the Internet dangerous" or "is TV a bad influence" are shockingly moronic! There is no doubt that what happened to the young man was very very unfortunate. But its not the social networking sites that need safeguards. It is the brain of the user that needs safeguards. What can the website possibly do to prevent you from befriending strange people? Wait...why the hell should the website take responsibility for it anyway?

Oh, I just got reminded of a third instance. The whole shaktimaan controversy. If a child watches a superhero jump off a building wearing deep purple and gold coloured clothing that had a rather velvety appearance, imitates him, jumps off a building and loses his life, it really isn't the television shows fault! But there they were, scores of people protesting and asking for it to be taken off the air immediately. Why? Probably because they're afraid of being judged callous if they spoke the truth- that the only people who could be held responsible were the child's parents, or the child him or herself.

A philosophical text, a psychoanalyst, and a birthday party.

The Mahabharata, is a fantastic story- with characters that aren't black or white but in varying shades of grey. Covering a rather vast spectrum of issues, it has information you can actually use in day to day life.

My first exposure, and one that left a pretty strong impression on me, of the Mahabharata was the television series that Doordarshan used to show every Sunday morning. I used to watch it regularly. I was about 8-10 years of age.

The Bhagavad Gita is a part of the Mahabharata and before I read the entire text recently, I had memorised the following lines as a little girl. (Thanks to the TV show. This was the opening track)

Yada yada hi dharmasya, glanirva bhavati bharata
Abhyuthanam adharmasya, tadaatmaanam srijami aham,
Paritranaya sadhunam, vinashayaschadushkritam,
Dharma sansthapan aarthay, sambhavaami yuge yuge.

I will not attempt a literal translation. The meaning is basically that since time immemorial, whenever man has gone astray from the path of dharma, the prescribed way of life, whenever evil has overpowered good, the Lord himself has assumed human form and descended to earth, to destroy evil, reinstate dharma and righteousness.

Given the abovementioned, the question that came to my mind was this – if the birth of Lord upon the earth took place in a time of chaos and destruction, of corruption and violence, of the stripping of innocence and the slipping of moral values, then what exactly are we celebrating with Janamashtami, Ram Navami ?(Other religions too, but I am holding Vishnu responsible because it was one of his avatars - reincarnations- who allegedly said the abovementioned)

Do we celebrate because, finally, we have a saviour among us? Someone who will deliver us from the hell we have created for ourselves? Does the celebration mark the end of a long period of darkness? Is the exultation with joy masking a sigh of relief?

What I am basically trying to get at is the difference between the period before the birth of a child, and the birth of the Lord. Both are celebrated, no doubt. Both for largely selfish reasons (Of course, I accept all the flak I may face for saying that the decision to have a child is a purely selfish one. But, well that's that).

What’s the difference then?

The difference that strikes me, is that while the period before the birth of a child need not be a chaotic and dismal one, that before the birth of the Lord, in a human from (which is the only acceptable form for most people, which itself warrants a whole other discussion) necessarily does. That is, he wouldn't even be here if it weren't for our misdeeds etc. The fact that he is around should be accepted as proof that things are not quite as peachy and perfect as they ought to be.

This brings me to the next element. Donald Winnicott. (Before I go further, I must state that my knowledge of Winnicott’s theories and formulations is rather rudimentary. However, I couldn't’t wait for my knowledge to expand before I put these thoughts down. These thoughts will probably expand as and when my knowledge does).

So, Winnicott. For those unfamiliar with him, Donald Winnicott is a Psychodynamic (A tradition that branched off from classical Psychoanalysis) thinker and clinician. He has worked extensively with children, and his writings have allowed us to have a closer understanding of the inner world of a child.

One of his ideas that have stayed with me is that of the child or infant creating its mother- At the risk of oversimplification, it means that for healthy development and identity formation the mother has to be available at just the right time when the child thinks of her or wants her; allowing the child to feel that he/she has conjured her up magically; that she is by him/her and for him/her.

I think mankind carries within itself the Winnicottian child. Just as the child brings the parent, or more specifically the mother into existence, just as the child creates the mother, mankind also creates its God. The child creating the parent is a healthy process, as is mankind creating God I guess. But the sad part is that God is created out of a need more than a wish.

The child’s aggression, creativity and play, are manifested in the manner in which the child tests his environment, his parents, to check if they can withstand his outbursts. If they can, then all is well and the child moves on, grows. Analogously, the chaos and tumult which characterizes the period before the birth of God, could be equated with the child-adolescent like testing of the parent (God is, after all, our supreme mother and father). The child throws its toys about, makes a mess and the mother smiles patiently and lovingly, teaches the child how to restore order. The child is content that his mother can handle him, that he is in good hands, and life is good again. It is essentially the same thing with God.

We need to know that he is around, we need to assure ourselves that he can withstand us. So, to refine the earlier distinction between the birth of the child and the birth of God. In the former case, we give birth to our offspring. In the latter, we give birth to our parent.

All this is not to suggest that one must not celebrate the birth of God the way one does. Who could argue that the repeated re assurances, the repeated rescues the Lord (allegedly) makes for our sake, when we need it the most, is anything but a reason to rejoice?

But the question is, how many such rescues will have to be made, how many re assurances given before we are assured? Perhaps we need to give him a break. Perhaps we need to stop testing him. After all, a mother also loses her cool with her child sometimes. How much do we really want to try his patience?

Its time to stop assuming someone will come and be our saviour. Only then can we stop making a bloody mess of our lives and of this planet. As it is, it would be better if we took care of ourselves. We wouldn't need the poor fellow to leave his own worries behind and come to our rescue.

Well said...

...For the sake of others like me, who suffer from some sort of expressive inadequacy disorder.

Our struggle with our own selves can find a place in the following lines. And we can be content that the void left behind by the things we do not say can at least be filled by these words.

Kya kahoon kuchh kaha nahi jaaye,

Bin kahe bhi raha nahi jaaye,

Raat bhar karvat mein badloon,

Dard dil ka saha nahi jaaye.

Sabse pyari subah teri, sabse rangeen teri shyam...tujhpe dil qurban!

India Gate

In the horizon- Rashtrapati Bhavan

Poignant Pointlessness

Holy Cow: amI here?

LP : ! of course u r!

Holy Cow: sorry to bother you with these questions again and again but chat is acting up.

LP: hahha! I am wondering what's with am I here? seems like an existential question!

Holy Cow: :)

Holy Cow: existentialists will say "we are here for sure. and this is the only place we'll ever be"

LP: ha ha ! true..

Holy Cow: my question was more Indian spirituality/ 'Maya' related no?

LP: yup yup!