The weekend has come and gone. The more religious amongst us have begun the Navratri week. Spring is very much on the way. One of the Orissa hostages has been dramatically rescued. Most of us are going to escape the hike in the train-fares. The Little Master has completed his 100th century. And on a personal note, one of my school time buddies and boarding schoolmate has just been appointed Chief Secretary. And my favourite nephew has just got married to the sweetest girl imaginable.

You might consider there is enough for a closet hedonist like myself to enjoy. But why is it that I do not experience the exhilaration I should? I pondered and pondered, and I think I have the answer. I’m suffering from a sense of politician overload. My poor receptors are now supersaturated with the mega-dose of politicians we have been subjected to. Almost to the extent that there is a real risk of reverse osmosis in this article that I am just penning.

I have just been trying to put a percentage figure to the space politicians have monopolised in the last week on television. While accurate calculation is well nigh impossible, no matter how hard I tried through incessant channel surfing the same faces appeared and re-appeared on almost every news channel. I am in a habit of taking a break every day at 9 pm and this is the time I spend to acquaint myself with what is happening in the world around me. And no matter which channel I tried, there was no getting away from the very familiar faces with their very familiar absence of logic making full use of decibels at their command.

You may legitimately ask what is so strange about this? After all it is the politicians who run the country and hence are expected to make news, and it is more than natural that they would make their presence felt and express their views through the media, specially the news channels. And you would be right. But the point is that we seem to forget what we expect from our politicians on the TV, particularly during news channel debates. Do we not place an obligation upon them that they have to come clean on the queries that are put to them, be cogent in their analysis of the issues that bedevil the nation, and above all even when they resort to extreme economy with the truth to wilfully and meticulously abjure any mendacity? And on this count I guess we all have good reasons to feel despondent.

I witnessed no fewer than ten debates in the course of the last week on practically every news channel, and the pattern of each was woefully similar. None of the debates I witnessed came to a meaningful conclusion where even the least common denominator was agreed upon. The parties were simply not interested. They were just interested in scoring points and out-shouting each other.

Which brings me to the main point – Was I really left feeling wiser after all these debates? After all, that was presumably the main purpose of having them on air in the first place. And the course is getting predictable. The Congress (Indira) spokesperson and the BJP spokesperson both strenuously claiming to speak on behalf of the ‘aam aadmi’ never agree and offer bizarre prescriptions. It is so futile to expect anything meaningful from their routine forays. I wonder and wonder why they are being let off so easily. Since I relocated to India after about three decades, the country undoubtedly has gone through a sea change. At least on the surface. The telephone lines work for one. In fact, the mobile revolution has caught up in a big way. And one does not have to be content with four hourly doses of Doordarshan with all the drabness the channel had to offer. But it seems that the pace of change in our mindsets has not been commensurate. And this is what perhaps distinguishes our commercial channels form the ones I was used to in the countries I lived in outside India.

I shall deal with my time in the British Isles first. When I first arrived there, cable TV was not available and we had to make do with two BBC channels and an Independent channel. Additionally, there was the Irish channel RTE. News had a time slot which we all used to look forward to and the format was pretty much similar to the ones that we witness on news channels here today. But the current affairs section which was responsible for the news broadcasts always made it a point to supplements news bulletins with analytical programmes and interviews in order to enhance the public appreciation of the events that were taking place.
Sir Richard Dimbleby, the doyen of British journalism who had passed away by that time, still exercised a massive influence through the legacy he had bequeathed. Out of curiosity I obtained a volume of the erudite lectures he had delivered, in which he had stated the following: “The sacred duty of the journalist does not cease at obtaining scoops or presenting facts. The serious journalist, by virtue of his position, is able to obtain facts that perhaps no other section of the society is privy to. The onus therefore rests on him to make sure that it is properly analysed for the public. It would of course be unreasonable to expect a polymathic capacity in every National Union of Journalist card holder hence my practice has always been to rely upon the opinions of those whose expertise in question exceeded mine.”

Of course we have had some brilliant analytical journalists at our disposal. Robin Day made a name for himself by being equally nasty to all shades of politicians and some say that Karan Thapar has modelled himself on him; I am not so sure. But when it came to analysis, Ludovic Kennedy and Brian Walden were in a class of their own. Then there were others like Mike Aspel and Mike Parkinson who would provide analysis in an entertaining manner, spurring the concept of chat shows. Because of this revolution in superior journalistic skills, politicians were forced to pull up their socks and not be unprepared in any way before facing an interviewer. Those who ducked like John Nott were eventually compelled to bid adieu to politics. Nott had refused to appear on Day’s show. And there was no way these journalists could be intimidated, demeaned or ridiculed.

Instead we are treated to a more than necessary dose of a diplomat turned politician turned polemicist turned publicist named Mani Shankar Aiyar! Aiyar models himself of Goebells (who incidentally was far superior in his intellectual acumen) and tries to imitate the lingo of Aristophanes not with much success to those who have read Goebells and Aristophanes. I have often wondered how a person so conceited and wilfully obnoxious is allowed to indulge in the repetitive display of superciliousness. One only has to recall the epithets he used for widowed Sheila Dixit. Correction! We all know how he gets away with his offensive conduct because he is close to occupants of 10 Janpath who require him to write speeches!

Both BBC and ITV regularly invited known experts to expound the understanding of complex issues. Much of my political insight was honed listening to philosophers like Brian Magee, Freddie Ayers, Jonathan Glover and political scientists like Philip Windsor. They had absolutely no political axe to grind and one could get an objective viewpoint. A news programme like Choices was moderated by a very attractive young rabbi named Julia Neuberger in which the choices we make and how we make them was routinely discussed. It remains by far one of the most informative programmes I have ever witnessed on TV.

When I moved across the Atlantic, cable TV had caught up. But all the news channels made sure that the presentation of news was always supplemented by a thorough discussion with experts. Noam Chomsky, John Rawls and my friend, Horacio Arlo-Costa made regular appearances and enlightened listeners. ABC decided that medical matters were too complicated for regular journalists and employed a medical colleague, Timothy Johnson. I believe CNN has followed suit and employed Sanjay Gupta.

This was all done to ensure that we do not get stagnated with the brand of political conceit that we observe on the Indian TV now. The last meaningful interview I recall on a commercial channel was Arnab interviewing Julian Assange in which we came to know something new – unlike the routine interviews that appear on channels. For philosophical analysis we do have the likes of Asish Nandy and Dipankar Gupta who make sporadic appearances mainly on Doordarshan or Lok Sabha Channels and a few primetime channels. But I recall no political philosopher being asked to expound his or her views on the other channels. And Doordarshan still has not been able to shed its reputation of being drab, while the Lok Sabha Channel has minimal viewership.

In my days in the UK, Channel 4 was introduced with the express purpose of broadcasting those items which were not cost effective and the results were phenomenal. Had it not been for Channel 4 we would have been deprived of people like Farrokh Dhondhy. The Public Broadcasting System in the US offered me refuge when I had similar political overdoses. It is still going strong and not known to be commercially viable.

I miss and Indian version of Channel 4! I miss an Indian innovation of the PBS! I miss enlightened debates with philosophers and experts – eventually we may be able to get philosopher rulers like Marcus Aurelius, Bolingbroke, Balfour and Masiryck! I dream!

I conclude here with a note. I have spoken about philosophers to guide us. With the permission of the editors here I might even indulge in expounding the role of a brilliant philosopher who has made me understand our society much better and whose birth anniversary falls on April 1.

Who is this person? I shall let you hazard a guess.

Image Source [http://www.flickr.com/photos/crazysphinx/4081596290/sizes/l/in/photostream/]