Indian Media - Noise and Silence

Neither the noise nor the silence of our media will have any long term positive impact on the society, on the other hand, both may result in unintended and unwanted consequences.

It is in every one’s knowledge that media reports news and events selectively. ‘Breaking’ news and ‘sensational’ news are not just subjective in the general sense of choosing according to one’s interests or prejudices but they are deliberately chosen to raise the TRP ratings. In the process many more interesting, worth covering and important events are being deliberately left out. This discrimination is not just among various events/incidents, but also among various castes, classes and categories.  

This news article (“Ignored and discriminated against: The sad story of India's paralympians - http://www.firstpost.com/sports/ignored-and-discriminated-against-the-sad-story-of-indias-paralympians-2053495.html”) shows how less an attention these sports’ champs got. Better media coverage helps in garnering more support for various sports. But many media channels think that (and practically speaking rightly so) there is no need to cover certain things as there is not much audience, living the point aside that there is no audience because many are not aware.

What is the way out of this vicious cycle? It needs courageous visionaries from both the sides – media as well as audience, though it is more important for them to be present in the media. We have come across many movies (Taare Zamin Par, Chak de, Stanley ka dabba), ideas (Halla Bol – series highlighting social issues), shows (Satyamev Jayate) which took up a not-so-popular subject and through their work tried to make it popular. They proved that people actually supported good thoughts when presented in an interesting way.

On the other hand, even if they cannot make things interesting for audience, it is media’s responsibility to bring out the unheard and let people know. Certain ground realities like untouchability, caste and gender discriminations, child labour, poverty etc needn’t be packed nicely but a passionate presentation will suffice. Many a presentations by media tend to raise sympathy among the viewers, while it is empathy and compassion that are more important to be spread.

With every right comes a corresponding duty. Media has the right to speech (even selective) but has an equal amount of duty to give the whole information, and cover all events equally passionately. The movie “Hitler – The rise of evil” portrays a character of a journalist who dares to raise his voice against the atrocities, brutal and autocratic ideas of Hitler and how Germany and its people will pay for their ignorance and silence. He loses his job, and was taken to concentration camp and ultimately gets killed. His lone efforts might not have changed the course of history of Germany, but had his contemporaries in the media put a collective effort for the larger good of the society, things would have been different. Similarly, neither the noise nor the silence of our media will have any long term positive impact on the society, on the other hand, both may result in unintended and unwanted consequences.

Activity everywhere not an ounce of productivity

The dictionary meaning of the word ‘Activity’ goes like this – ‘The trait of being active, moving or acting rapidly and energetically’. This very precisely explains what happens in a typical Indian government office.  Activity in government offices is an act with no forward or backward linkages; meaning, a micro plan deliberating on past experiences and planning for future is very rarely part of it. This is work wise.

With respect to work culture, irrespective of outcomes, government officials need ‘some activity’ to show that they are working. Just as the dictionary definition mentions – they will be active and energetic. Sometimes (underestimated!) work is done for the heck of it; to perpetuate the ‘sarkari’ culture of rule bound work; adding a lot to unproductivity. Something which can be decided in a minute’s time, is ‘planned out of proportion’ and may yet times take a few days. Irony is that the officials take pride in it.

Usually the head of the office/department, need people around to feel important; to boss them over, to ‘actively’ give instructions. And the subordinates ‘actively’ try to prove that they have been working on the project and that they have made considerable progress.

O !! At least if this ‘shallow activity’ goes on continuously, everyday, some ‘unintended good consequences’ would have occurred. But the government officials’ brains are tricked into false assumption that they take this ‘shallow activity’ as ‘work itself’. The brain tends to make the officials feel that they have done enough for the day/week/a month (Its all the brains’ fault u see!). The official lunch and tea breaks which unofficially extend to three hours or so is a manifestation of the 'heavy work load'. This will lead to ‘lull in the activity’ until the next trigger might come in the form of a routine meeting or a review meet with higher officials etc. The activity suddenly resumes and everyone get busy again.

We, very well know the consequences of this type of working culture. How do we overcome this and turn routine activity into fruitful one? One way could be to increase the frequency of triggers. But usually triggers come from higher up authorities and there is a whole big chain all the way up to central government. One lazy, irresponsible officer in the chain will render it unproductive. And in a system where everyone knew what the other is upto, what is the incentive to trigger some one to work, which might trigger another chain of events, unintended and uncalled for, which may bring out the true colour of everyone. So the rule is - 'you do what u want, I do what I want, in silence and let's wreck the system'. Few good men and women, take initiatives to give triggers, which set things right in the lower levels. But the frequent transfers make such productive periods very short lived. The ministers at the top, who are assured of five year period (in most cases) should take such steps, but we understand they are busy with hell lot of other things !!

Another way could be directly link the losses in delay or non completion to the salaries and be given as allowances to the people affected. Problem with this is that we have shortage of staff especially at the lower rungs. So, one has to handle multiple responsibilities, which makes it difficult to identify clear cut responsibilities. Adding to this there are different guidelines to different schemes, different ways of getting money and releasing the same to the beneficiaries and other complications.

 In this web of intricacies there are many more tangles, which should be handled one by one to free the system gradually. 

  

When shall we dream big ?

We need automation led by people which ultimately results in true consciousness of the people. 
An automated system would be one where people demand their needs, participate in the pre-legislation process by giving their views, involve in the scheme's implementation, give their feedback on its outcome (through tools like social audit) and the cycle should continue 'automatically

"Achche din" is relative and as the whole campaign went it also shows it is subjective; meaning "Achche din" is dependent on the ruling party. If x party comes, achche din come. It is relative because the so called good times are comparable across time and on various other aspects - development, poverty etc. On a practical level, this approach may not be blamed, but isn't it a narrow view ? Atleast a few, a few good men and women, should dare to dream big and broad !

What would that big dream be? 'We need automation led by people which ultimately results in true consciousness of the people'. My friends from left and right wouldn't be able to digest the usage of the words 'automation' and 'true consciousness' in the same breath, but the idea is that people should be the centre and important part of the system.

Hundreds of government schemes for the benefit of the people, do not have people as integral part at any stage (pre-legislation, post legislation, during implementation etc etc) except as 'passive beneficiaries' or 'target groups'. An automated system would be one where people demand their needs, participate in the pre-legislation process by giving their views, involve in the scheme's implementation, give their feedback on its outcome (through tools like social audit) and the cycle should continue 'automatically'.

I understand that this is a very ideal scenario, may be not possible for years to come, something which even the so called developed countries did not yet achieve, but not impossible. No points for guessing what response is expected from many government officials and the politicians for such a system - "people are ignorant, they are self sufficient, they do not understand all these, it is very time consuming, we do not have required resources"; pessimism just overflows. That is why I say we are cowards even to dream of such a system. Obviously, politicians try to keep people perpetually in ignorance, in order to remain powerful.

Nevertheless, a little progress in this direction, how much ever little it might be has been made, thanks to international pressure. Definitely, words like transparency, accountability, grievance redressal, social audit,people centred development, participative decision making etc - are heard widely in government institutions at least, if not by the people. They find frequent references in government policy documents also. Yet, this is not enough - this is only little more than lip service. Also, it was mostly limited to mobile and internet users through e-governance. Even the fresh move by the new government - Mygov - an online portal for people's participation is in the same lines. The majority - the gigantic social sector schemes' beneficiaries - who do not have technology are still left behind.

And the allegation that people do not know is true, but isn't 'educating people' be made part of policy itself? MGNREGS is a classic case in point. Firstly, we are wasting our energies in implementing it through out the country, even where it is not required and leaving behind much attention needed areas. There are many areas where people do not know much about the scheme and the procedure. There were instances where people paid money to get job cards. Secondly, the scheme guidelines run into hundreds of pages with the mention of all the important words like social audit, people's pariticipation, transparency etc. What is the point when they are not able to guide people to utilize the scheme well???

When people understand why and what of any scheme it will be easy to implement it. Awareness generation is part of various schemes but is never taken seriously. Therefore, in the areas where people are well aware, any scheme works decently well and where they are unaware the best of the schemes also tend to fail. Instead of publicizing about the schemes, government in the last few years was running a 'publicity campaign' for the upcoming elections. Recent media reports say that the UPA government has spent Rs 2048 crores on advertisement and publicity of its schemes in three years. On an average Rs 55 crore per month approximately. It could have been spent for awareness generation in the 200 backward districts of the country, each would have got a huge sum of 25 lakhs.

Once people are involved they can and will monitor schemes themselves. Pariticipation in social audits will increase and the process of automation starts. It is also important to close the loop of automation, by incorporating the relevant feedback received from people back into the policy. Otherwise, the efforts go waste. No system is perfect, it needs to be constant upgradation. But there should be a start somewhere at some point. If we think we have already started, then we need a big push now. If we have not yet started, we should do so immediately. Hope "Achche din", at least to dream big and make a start in the direction of automation by people, are not so far off.

Talk .... Communicate.... Connect

The larger message is that in order to connect to people, one should treat them for what they are and to see them as end in themselves rather than as a means to something. 

My PMRDF training at TISS, Mumbai is coming to an end. In one of the communication classes the teacher asked us to reflect upon our learnings and take aways from the whole training on communication. The message, in short, is that talking, communicating and connecting with people are three different things. If I may generalize, ignoring a few exceptions, I would say these three happen at various stages of a communication; and depending on the context and purpose.

Talking happens at a superficial level where mostly information gets exchanged either casually or for a purpose. (Talking to someone on in a bus stop for 2 minutes before the bus arrives). Communicating is at the next level. There is a definite purpose and both the parties try to convey some message to the other party. At a given point it could be either one way or two way. (Doctor and patient communicating with each other is two way; Government trying to communicate a message to the citizens through a poster is one way). Lastly connecting well with the other person/group is the deepest form wherein people go beyond content and language and establish a relationship which is more long lasting.

Having said that, when someone is trying to make a conscious effort to 'connect' with someone, there are certain dos, as follows, may not be in the order mentioned: (And especially for someone like a PMRD Fellow, working closely with people)
Listen: to not just words but to gestures, wisdom, experiences, various meanings attached, the life struggle of an individual or group etc. This listening is not just with ears but with the whole body, mind and heart.

Larger Image: It is important to understand the social background of the people in any location, their culture, customs, traditions, norms, political and economic scenario etc before one could make a meaningful conversation.

Trust building: A conversation with a person is just not an information gathering exercise. One needs to dig deep, to get more insights by asking probing questions, by showing utmost interest. The genuineness shown in trying to understand the person first before one could be understood, is the first step to building trust. If I go back people would want to talk to me, rather than seeing me as someone trying to interfere in their lives.

Reflect: on one's own communication and to assess the overall conversation. This will help in seeing through oneself and identify any failures in establishing trust and reinforce successful methods in building it. This will help us correct ourselves, tune ourselves better to the situation and make the most out of conversation.

Repeat: While making a deliberate attempt, anything might go wrong at any time, thus one should be willing to repeat the whole process of trying to connect with people, all over again. This patience comes naturally if one respects people just for being fellow men and women, rather than as some means to a larger end.

Thus the larger message is that in order to connect to people, one should treat them for what they are and to see them as end in themselves rather than as a means to something.

P.S: Though TISS helped me refine my thoughts, this blog post is my personal opinion.

Random thought - Identifying the poor for targeted welfare

In the debate of universal vs targeted provisioning of services to the poor, the common argument of those pro-universal are that targeting system will exclude many who need the services. Today I came across an interesting way of 'identifying the rich' while reading the book "The Wisdom of Ants: A Short History of Economics" by Shankar Jaganathan.

The fifth century book composed by Sukracharya called 'Sukraniti' defined who is rich in terms of their need for wealth. Those who has amount enough to live for twelve years was considered sufficiently rich, enough for sixteen years was considered moderately rich and those having enough to survive for thirty years was defined as amply rich. Those in the amply rich category should serve the king for free for eight years. Only the penniless should receive wages from the king for their service. The idea of not paying the rich is justified as Sukraniti classified kingdoms on the basis of their ability to collect tax without oppressing the subjects. So, paying the rich would mean oppressing others by collecting taxes from them.

Statistically, to get such information about how long a person can survive with the riches he or she has is a big challenge. Nevertheless, at the village/local level, where everyone knows every other person, it would not be a difficult task to identify the beneficiaries. Hypothetically, if grains are to be given, one would know how much grains a family would need to survive for say, a month. And if the fair price shop is managed by people themselves, they will identify the families. We do not need ration cards for this purpose. Of course, this is just a raw idea and needs to be worked out upon.

My idea in trying to take lessons from the early literature is that universalization of services is not the solution for the failure of identifying right people; but to find better ways for identifying the needy.

What is paving way for cinemas into politics ?

If I have to identify three things that are common to cinema and politics, those would be loyalty, identity and interest articulation

It is popularly said that one needs money or muscle (2m) power or both to enter Indian politics. A third 'm' - movie has been making itself more visible. Though the affair between cinema and politics has a long history, the factors contributing to the nexus are not very clear. There are regional variations with respect to the extent of overlap of political and cinema fields. History shows that Southern India's experience is different from that of the north's. A few actor-turned-politicians floated their own parties and also were able to form governments. NTR (AP) and MGR (TN) are the classic cases. In the north, the cine participation confined to contesting elections on traditional party tickets and becoming legislators representing both people as well as the cinema industry.

This article is to try and understand what special factors laid such deep roots of cinema in politics, in South India (more specific to AP). People from both north and south equally encouraged and loved movies and thereby the actors. The craze is evident from the fact that people love to wait for hours infront of the actors' houses just to get a glimpse of their heros and heroines. The love shown by audience was unconditional both on screen and off screen. An anecdotal evidence from my grandmother - when she visited Madras as a tourist, she and her family waited for an hour just to get a glimpse of Telugu actor N T Rama Rao.

Though this was the scenario through out the country, two important factors that were more specific to South India are - language and religion. Unlike Hindi, which was spoken in many of the northern states, southern languages were prevalent in more confined geographical regions. And difficulty in understanding Hindi, drew the audience even closer to their respective film industries. Though Amitabh might be popular through out the north, when it comes to identifying him with a particular state, it would be difficult; whereas N T Rama Rao was identified with telugu people in Andhra Pradesh and same was the case with M G Ramachandran in Tamil Nadu.

Religion was another factor. Films based on mythological stories from Epics like Ramayan and Mahabharat were large in number. More importantly, people favourite actors played major roles in them - Rama, Krishna, etc. It is very difficult to imagine Amitabh Bachchan in the role of a Ram or Krishn; while people would not have hesitated to fold their hands in prayer in front of NTR's picture clad in Lord Ram or Lord Krishn's attire (though a bit exaggerated, not totally wrong). Such a devotion both on screen and off screen, somewhere blurred the lines between devotion to God and loyalty to an actor. This is clearly manifested in the number of statues built for the actors and a few instances where temples were also built for them.

If I have to identify three things that are common to cinema and politics, those would be loyalty, identity and interest articulation. In south, the "fan following" culture is seen prominently. Fans remain loyal to their actors; more loyal than their counterparts in political parties where opportunism, pragmatism etc also play simultaneously. Movies/Actors give people two types of identity - one, being fan of so and so actor is an identity in itself; two - a national and an international identity through language. I experienced this personally. Once I have been to a temple in Varanasi, and the priest there asked me the place I am coming from. I replied - "Andhra" and he immediately identified me with "NTR?" and so many such anecdotes from international experiences are also available. The last common thing is interest articulation. Usually Tollywood is audience driven industry, as in, the director may not kill the protogonist in the story just because the audience wouldn't like to see him/her die. This might be a very trivial example, but since the actors catered to the interests of the masses, they were able to withstand the political pressures. For example, without paying heed to loss of revenue to the State exchequer, NTR imposed a ban on alcohol.

Thus loyalty, identity and interest articulation are the basic building blocks paving path from cinema to politics. This has reduced the entry barrier into politics for many. Nevertheless, it confines to giving entry advantage only. As the interest articulated by the leaders change, and if the performance is not upto people's expectations, emotions play very less role and wisdom comes to fore. FOr instance, Chiranjeevi a renowned Telugu movie actor floated his own party - Praja Rajyam Party (PRP) and was supported by people wholly based on the craze they have for him. Later when they realised that he is low on political acumen, he is being ignored.

There might be so many other factors acting simultaneously like caste, money, manifesto, political situation in the State etc. But this affair between politics and cinema has a long way to go, especially in South India.

One size doesn't fit all

Instead of giving bricks and mortor to build a structure, our policies also tend to give a floor plan and penalties for deviating. The freedom to implement according to local conditions and situation is missing.

One of the commonest arguments we hear about failure of public policy in India is– “We have good policy but bad or no implementation”. The reasons given are manifold – lack of political will and resources, myriad of rules for various programs, etc. A major problem hampering implementation is inherent to policy itself which is – having a one-size-fits-all policy. Instead of giving bricks and mortor to build a structure, our policies also tend to give a floor plan and penalties for deviating. The freedom to implement according to local conditions and situation is missing. If we have one-size-fits-all policy, we might end up not fitting any and it results in a failure. It is a fact that in India, local political and socio-economic conditions change when one moves over very small distances. Detailing to that minute level is difficult, yet, it should be considered to some administratively feasible level (say till district level).

The debate since the last few years has been centred around ‘growth vs human development’, which was also a one sided one, trying to solve all problems either through growth or human development. Sufficient focus has not been given to decentralisation. We have a single poverty line for the whole country. Till recently we had a calorie norm which fits entire urban (2100 kcal) and entire rural (2400 kcal). Education is imparted to all in the same form irrespective of its utility to the learners. No wonder parents do not send their children to schools, as it is more beneficial for them if they send them to work. In a recent interaction with an expert in tribal affairs, we were told that a tribal student struggles for life to learn Hindi (there is no gender differentiation in a tribal language as there is in Hindi).

NREGA doesn’t take local employment needs, other livelihood opportunities available into consideration. Agriculture wages shot up and there was a crunch of labour in the peak harvest period. The scheme was started on a pilot basis and without a proper study of the impact it had, it was extended to the whole country. Similarly, in a country with varied food preferences, 67% of the population, who have varied food preferences, is covered under the Food Security Act. Another  overlapping problem is that of a new born fascination for “entitlements based approach”. Any thing given as a right is expected to not fail, with rest everything unchanged. The same old hierarchal and lethargic bureaucracy enmeshed in rules is supposed to acquire a super hero stature, as soon as the government gives a right to a citizen.

The strengthening of local self governments and the district administration, which is the most important task is side-lined. Even after twenty years of their inception, they suffer from insufficient funds, functions and functionaries. “District” as a unit of administration doesn’t find its place in policy debates. In all the legislations district is given certain duties but they are not consulted before framing a policy. For instance, Parliament recently passed Street Vendors Bill. It is okay to have a broad policy on street vending but the central government has no capability to decide upon how a “street” should be managed.

Often times it is stated that the states do not devolve powers to the local bodies. It is true. But same is the case with the centre; it doesn’t devolve powers to the states. It needs an intricate web of incentives and penalties that push states to do so. Simultaneously capacity building should take place at the lower rungs of administration, especially of those who work at the frontline. There is a stagnation of higher age groups (Eg: Majority of the junior engineers, food inspectors, and extension workers fall in the age group of 40-50); high incentive to be corrupt (Eg: In Bihar, the salary of the implementing officer of NREGA workers per month is less than those of the NREGA workers according to a TISS’ study); and a stark limitation to the capacity of the frontline workers, in terms of skills and resources.

Local problems should find local solutions. Decentralisation should be the way forward. Gathering of data, monitoring, evaluation and thereby taking corrective measures will be easy at a local level. Therefore, it is time we shed our one-size-fits-all approach and realise that we need more tailored policies.