أنا الريـس
نفسى ف صنف ينمل النغاشيش و يتكتك الدماغ

واخش فى الغيبوبه .....
وانسى بلدنا المنهوبه
وانسى اللى بيجهزوه علشان يبقى رئيس المخروبه

واخش فى الاستهبال .....

There is a politico-psychological angle to this. The impression and assurance given to Muslims at the time of Partition was that their interests and identity would be safeguarded in a democratic country, irrespective of the fact that India is a Hindu-majority nation. However, the harsh fact is that even for the majority of Hindus there are many constraints in life, and they will have to exert themselves to overcome them. I am not debunking the expectation, but we must also remember that the media is a business. The media would not exist, it would go bankrupt very quickly, if it did not take its business responsibilities seriously. While being a business does not mean it should be exclusively devoted to making money, it is not feasible for any such venture to be purely idealistic.

Another aspect to remember is that most media in this country are run by businessmen and business families who have little understanding of what the media’s role vis-à-vis the Muslim community should be. They are interested only in making profits. When people talk of the commercialization of the media, which is a kind of catchphrase for all evils, what they are getting at is that the media are only interested in making profits and that their social responsibility has been diluted.

This is somewhat of a facile view of the media, and a facile view of our responsibility. It is the job, within these challenges and constraints, of the editors and editorial teams to maintain a balance between editorial integrity and the reasonable assumption of making a profit, so as to ensure that these two things are not necessarily incompatible and inconsistent. It is possible at one and the same time to be a media house interested in making profits (though not solely dedicated to this) yet also fulfilling its social responsibilities. When people talk about commercialization of the media, it is accompanied by the assumption that commercialization necessarily means an erosion and downgrading of media standards.

As a working editor, I submit that there is, in the media, sometimes even more cut-throat competition than there is in other, more honestly commercial, ventures like selling soap and ice cream. The media operate today in one of the most competitive environments as far as the marketplace is concerned. In this country, besides, we have a problem of too much media. In New York or Washington, you will probably find one major English-language daily. Delhi has twelve broadsheets, without even counting the small ones. This is a good thing and I am not deriding it, but we have to understand that in India a great deal of media rivalry and competition exist. This marketplace competition has its own compulsions, and an editor or editorial team that pretends otherwise does so at its own peril. 

This must be the basic premise and everything else, including the media’s presumed social responsibility towards Muslims or any other issue, must be seen in this context. If you remove this context and see the media purely in terms of having a social responsibility, of not measuring up to the standards of the press during Gandhi and Nehru’s time and of the National Herald and all those editors, you are looking at only half the picture. I think we had very eminent people and great newspapers in the times of Gandhi and Nehru. They did not, however, live in the current environment, with its competition, nor did they, as most editors do today, have to be constantly worried about the bottom-line. In these competitive times, if you are not worried about how well your paper is doing, you are held in low esteem as an editor, and your editorial policy is circumscribed in some ways by this constraint. There is, however, no fundamental incompatibility between making profits and social responsibility. Of course, standards can be lowered, some papers can sell out—as has indeed happened. But if you have a paper that is commercially successful you cannot assume that it automatically has poor editorial standards, nor does it automatically mean that a paper is going to lose money if a paper has very high editorial standards.

The question of whether the media has been fair to Muslims and where it has gone wrong has to be seen in his context. Keeping this in mind, we can now pose our questions. Has the Indian media been fair to Indian Muslims? Have we portrayed them with sensitivity and objectivity, keeping in view the problems they face? Have the media given undue prominence to the lunatic fringe? Have the media suppressed and ignored liberal or moderate voices? Have they paid too much attention to the maulavis and mullahs? Have they given 200 million Muslims a bad press and painted them as rabid and fundamentalist?

These are very relevant questions, and I do not pretend to have answers to all of them. But from time to time, I have been confronted with some of these questions and complaints, and I must say that some of the criticism of the media in this regard is justified. I will not attempt an apology or defence here but will try to present some of the problems and compulsions of the media as a backdrop against which these complaints should be viewed. One of the things that we should remember is that journalists are fundamentally extremely lazy people. The assumption that we are very industrious and will do a lot of groundwork for stories is an erroneous one. If a sound-byte is readily available from the Imam of the Jama Masjid, for example, why should the TV reporter go looking for the not-so-easily-available moderate voice, which anyway makes for dull copy?

But it is assumed, because of the special responsibility that has been thrust on us (or sought to be thrust on us), that we will go looking for that moderate voice and perhaps ignore the strident one. In a way, much the same charge is made by secular Hindus against the media— that too much space is given to people like Praveen Togadia. The reason we do so brings us to the other part of the criticism—that the rabid and fringe voice is strident and extreme, and is therefore more saleable. It makes for better television if you have two people shouting at and abusing each other than if you have two people having a reasoned and moderate debate. The lazy way out is to look for the strident voice that lends itself to a raucous debate. I think that if there is a defining complaint against the media from progressive and liberal Muslims, it is that we deliberately go out looking for these voices and ignore and suppress the more moderate and enlightened voices.

But in all this there is a problem and I can tell you that I face exactly this problem as an editor: where is this moderate Muslim liberal voice and how are we going to access it? Anyway, liberal Muslims have their own views on the issue. They argue that whenever some foolish person makes a reactionary or extraordinarily stupid statement they are expected to come up with a response. The same is not expected of liberal Hindus; why then should this always be expected of the liberal Muslim? Liberal Muslims feel that it is humiliating for them to be constantly pressurized by the media and other people to state what the alternate voice is. But, as some people have pointed out, do they have a choice? Maybe they do not have the luxury of keeping silent. So what is this image of Muslims that an unfair media has created? According to this view, Indian Muslims are held captive by an extremely powerful but regressive religious leadership and a passive and backward-looking political leadership that is attuned to this religious leadership and therefore determined to resist change and modernity. Whether this image is correct or not, it exists. It is also true that, right or wrong, this image matters decisively in the contemporary world. (One encounters a state of denial here, exemplified by the statement that this is just a perception floated by a rather unfair media concerned with its own interests and profits. In my opinion that is simply not true.)

What has happened in the past is that there has been too much analysis of why this image exists. We have got into long historical debates that are quite irrelevant. Instead of confronting the challenge, we have spent a great deal of time in apportioning blame. A great deal of time has been wasted in examining the problem rather than solving it. Rather than run away from it or over-analyse it, it would be more useful to take up the challenge, accept the problem, and see what can be done to resolve it.

If the Muslim community itself introspects, this is a problem that can be solved. We need to get away from the sterile debate on who is responsible, and begin a new debate on correctives and a new strategy to redress the balance. How do we improve the image? How do we accelerate the process of modernization and social change among Muslims? We can be sure that dwelling on historical glories or the sense of the past will not help Muslims to face up to the challenges of contemporary life.

Who speaks for the Muslims in India? Of course, you can argue that there are at least 160 million Muslims in India, and they are not a monolith, so why should there be one or a few spokespersons?

Let there then be a plurality of voices—the media would be delighted if there were many voices from which they could select different voices to interview on different days of the week. Unfortunately, that situation does not exist. So what does the time-pressed TV reporter or the print journalist with a deadline do when looking for a byte? Much of the problem begins here. The conservative voice, ironically, is the most easily available. For instance, the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board that claims to be ‘the true protector of Indian Muslims’ and various other clerics who perpetuate Muslim stereotypes are the only ones easily available. These people are extremely media-savvy—they have websites, phone numbers, press conferences, press officers, public relations officers, and clout. 

In many ways, they understand the media much better than the Muslim middle-class and enlightened Muslims do, and they exploit the media much better and to the greatest possible extent. On the other hand, there are too few liberal Muslims who can be called upon to speak. So whenever there is a problem or debate, the media rounds up the usual suspects amongst the liberals. Sadly, of these some use the Muslim cause only for self-promotion. So you have to be very careful whether they are really interested in the problem or whether they are just interested in seeing their images on the television screen and in newspapers. You thus have a small pool of these voices to begin with, which is made even smaller if you try to discriminate too much between the genuine voices and the rent-a-voice that is available for every cause including that of Muslims.

What has happened as a result of this is that the so-called Muslim debate in this country has become a slanging match, a forum for abuse. You get a television studio, you lay out a few chairs and get a moderator—and then you get extremes, polarized views, and put them one against the other and goad them to call each other names. It is a dialogue of the deaf. But there is a feeling among television producers that this is what improves television ratings. So this is the only kind of ‘debate’ that occurs in India at the moment on these questions. It is completely counterproductive: for 20–5 minutes you are getting TV as a kind of entertainment sport; even in the print media, things are the same. We need more sober, more meaningful debates that can chalk out an agenda for change. And here the liberal moderate voice, which is reticent, which is perhaps not sure whether it should speak out, has at the very least to meet the media halfway. It must come out of its self-imposed restraint. It must be accessible; it must be eager to be heard. The expectation that the media will go searching for it is unrealistic.

Of course the assumption here is that such voices do exist. Some time ago, we spoke to Muslims for a cover story, ‘The Other Face of Indian Muslims’, in Outlook (5 October 2004). We did not go to the modern jeans-clad sort of Muslims, but those from the Jama Masjid like areas, and we got some very interesting voices of Muslim women and men who combined tradition and modernity so effortlessly. We assume that there is some kind of conflict between the two, but in the lives and professions of these ordinary Muslims they coalesce effortlessly. The Muslim question is very much a part of their psyche. The one thing that emerges, however, is that they want is to get on with their lives.

But this is only one part of the story, the pleasant part; it is not the whole truth of Muslim society. Later on we realized from the response of the readers that some of the families cited as examples in the story have no roots in the community and are thus not role models for the community. Besides, the number of such families is negligible. Moreover, there are also professional Muslim socialites who claim to be true representatives of the community simply because they live in the old-city area. They also sell themselves as progressives. No surprise then that, like other communities, there are also Muslim ‘seminarist intellectuals’ of the ‘Walled City’, who give wrong feedback to the media about Muslims. As I have already confessed, journalists are lazy, so the correspondent doing the story chose only those families that are socially prominent and in touch with professional intellectuals.

It seems that these days many a socialite is capitalizing on the exploitation done by the Imam of Jama Masjid and the institution of the Jama Masjid. There is no purpose behind frequent statements and press releases against the Imam by these socialites. I do not mean that I approve any kind of exploitation, religious or political, by the Imam of Jama Masjid; nor do I approve of governments in power or political parties that have been using the Imam’s name or the institution of the Jama Masjid for political gains. But then there is hardly anything constructive in the approach of Muslims and various groups who are against the Imam except a desire for self-publicity. Muslims will have to fight both the socialites and the Imam—or, for that matter, all religious institutions who are exploiting them.

Muslims will have to channelize all their stamina towards social and political empowerment. As an editor, even though I know that the Imam is exploiting the community to the core, I have to be careful not to give publicity to anti-Imam groups among Muslims. It would, in any case, not solve any of the problems faced by the community but only show it in poor light.

This is the age of publicity and propaganda and I want to emphasize once again that there is no point having good ideas and moderate views if you choose not to air them in a public forum. Good ideas need to be promoted, and you have to use all the tricks of modern media promotion. The liberal moderate Muslim voice appears to be somewhat uncomfortable with publicity. But they have to break out of that trap—they have to use the media, and they have to learn how to use it. And if these progressive voices come from Muslim institutions, from Muslim associations and Muslim bodies, then they will carry much greater weight. We therefore need a new partnership between the media and the moderate forward looking Muslim voice. We need to stop calling each other names and criticizing each other. We must forge a partnership, and we must forge an agenda for a partnership. Most of the media would be more than eager and willing to participate in this partnership but the moderate Muslim voice must be prepared to meet the media halfway.

It is also true that the Muslim problem is not the only problem as far as an editor’s basket is concerned; there are hundreds of other national problems. So it must take its place, high up in the priority list, but as one among other issues nevertheless. This must be seen in the wider context, and the wider context is that the media is a huge business today. However, I believe that it is the only business today, and the only institution, through which all your complaints are going to be aired, and in which there is great growth and which enjoys great public credibility. Competition may foster biases and other unethical factors but, by and large, if you ask the common man how he knows something is true, he will say that he read it in the newspaper. And I think that we should cherish this: that the media does have this public credibility despite all its shortcomings. If the media were biased from day one, it would not have this credibility.

Let us take up the case of the English-language media in particular. In liberal and Muslim forums, the English-language media is often accused of being guilty of an anti-Muslim bias; in other forums it is often accused of just the opposite. In my understanding, the English-language media is not biased. We try and understand the problems of the community, but Muslims are not our only concern.

Thus my plea to all concerned and to the Muslim liberal voice to meet us halfway—partly in response to the fact that we are lazy, but also because it is in the interest of all concerned. To wait for us to change, to expect us to operate with heightened social responsibility on the issue and to make greater efforts to find the liberal voice is not in the self-interest of Muslims. The media and Muslims are both engaged in the same project, both on the same side. There is no doubt that not only are media images of Muslims generally projected in a distorted form, but that every debate on the subject is also sought to be derailed. The populists, among Muslims too—those who do not want it to be discussed with sincerity—raise non-issues with reference to the role of English as a language and by corollary the English-language media. Their main argument is that the English-language media has played the biggest role in this distortion of Muslim images simply because it knows virtually nothing about Muslims, most of whom live below the poverty line and are backward in most spheres of life. Besides, hardly 1 per cent of Muslims know English. Both facts may be correct, but the hypothesis rests on wrong assumptions about a populist approach and an oversimplification of a very complex situation.

I would like to examine both hypotheses to the best of my ability as an English-language editor who also belongs to north India. Of course it must be borne in mind that I am not a sociologist. I also do not know Persianized and hybrid Urdu—that is considered as part of the Muslim sensibility for political purposes, mainly after Partition. For that matter I do not even know hybrid Hindi, which has also been used for political purposes in the name of Hindu nationalism.

The problem is that, despite the fact that in the entire country there would not be more than 10 per cent of people who are well versed in English, among the Muslims they are hardly 1 per cent. The English media is therefore only for the English-speaking people of India, and, English being a universal language, the English-language media of India becomes a window on India to the entire English speaking world. Contrary to the wishes of Hindi nationalists, English is expanding its scope in India and, hence, the Indian English language media becomes the showcase of India for the outside world. Hindi propagators underestimate the growing influence of English in every sphere of life even in north India. In the southern states, English has a sound base, yet there still is a real sense of pride for local culture and languages. But in north India, the political elite continue to play politics in the name of Hindi and Urdu-medium education for the masses—while they send their children to institutions in India and abroad where there is hardly any scope even for Hindustani as a spoken language. However, north Indian politics in the name of language—especially Muslim politics, in the name of Urdu—is not the subject of discussion here; I only want to make the point that it has remained very powerful in shaping Muslim sensibilities over the last one hundred years. The same is true for Hindi and Hindu politics.

To conclude my discussion on distorted media images of Muslims and how they can be improved, I would say that only processes of modernization and social transformation within the Muslim society can alter the situation. It is the community that would have to work out a feasible strategy for this in a hostile situation of an indifferent, hypocritical, and mediocre leadership in a Hindu-majority, yet democratic and plural, society. In the context of language, I shall conclude that one should know either Urdu or Hindi to comprehend the problems of the community. What is needed is interaction with the community and an understanding of the issues and the sociopolitical backdrop. For that, any language of communication would suffice, because it is frank interaction that would bring out the hidden reality, the exact problems faced by the community. It is true that a section of the English-language media (which is also not one homogeneous entity, and has many variations) has very little interaction with the members of the Muslim community. Those with whom it interacts are the elite, especially socialites among the community. This section of elite Muslims is itself cut off from the community and are professional ‘contractors’ of Muslims. Hence, they cannot in any way be the real representatives of the Muslim community. A look at the Muslim community as a whole would also serve some purpose here. Lately, the community has awakened from a long slumber, and has started making some progress. The modern generation is going in for education based on a secular curriculum and, on this basis, they are entering the competitive market. But there is one negative aspect here. The educated class among the Muslims at once starts aspiring for a leadership role. The end result is that the transformation process among the Muslims becomes sluggish. The common educated Muslims in the common civic space have gradually disappeared; they do not take part in addressing problems that they face in common with the same socio-economic group among Hindus, or other smaller religious minorities.

It is true that, for various reasons, the government did nothing for the overall uplift and empowerment of Muslims. The Muslim leadership, just after Partition and till the 1980s or so, was mainly responsible for this. It was unable to handle the situation arising out of Partition. But my question is why Muslims remain confined to emotional issues, especially in north India. Apart from establishing the Aligarh Muslim University, they did nothing for the educational empowerment of common Muslims. Surely the process of empowerment starts with education. My question, which fortunately is subscribed to by many, is: why do Muslims only nurture the madrasas—half a million of them with 50 million full-time students—and not think about providing secular education on their own? Definitely, the elite need madrasas for their political survival. What is intriguing is that these very people do not send their children to madrasas. The interesting thing is that Muslims, including educated Muslims, wholeheartedly support the madrasas, perhaps because they are not interested in secular education for common Muslim children. The madrasas serve their ulterior motives of aspiring to leadership, which is only possible if the community remains backward.

(The above article by Vinod Mehta was included in the book edited by Ather Farouqui titled “Muslims and the Media Images: News versus Views” published by Oxford University Press, New Delhi )

Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.

--The Buddha

Hatred does not cease by hatred, but only by love; this is the eternal rule.

--The Buddha

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----_______________________________________________

Sociology_of_islam mailing list

Sociology_of_islam@lists.pdx.edu

https://www.lists.pdx.edu/lists/listinfo/sociology_of_islam