Indian Press under attack - but do we care?

We have all noticed the increasing garbage that comes in the name of news at our doorstep. Many of us excuse/accept/swallow it in the name of the free market. The argument goes: if media have the ability to sell crap to make money, why shouldn't they? Readers are buying the papers no matter how lurid or useless the articles may be. Viewers have let channels get away with the sub-standard content. Everyone has chosen to buy what has been sold.

To me it appears that the public at large does not care enough for quality content or real news.

Had they cared, they would not have compromised.

I suspect that politicians have reached this same conclusion. They're using this welcome revelation to brazenly silence their detractors.

Lately, several journalists who were reporting unflatteringly on the political state of affairs landed themselves a calling card from courts. [I know attacks on press freedom are nothing new; but a spate of emails in my inbox suggest that the frequency has increased] To name some:

Bharat Desai (Times of India's Resident Editor), Prashant Dayal (Correspondent) and photographer. Charged with sedition and conspiracy against the state. They had written a series of articles (first article here) on the alleged links of new Ahmedabad police chief O P Mathur with a mafia don and his ability to guarantee security in the city.

Ajay T.G (film maker). Charged with sedition. He supported Dr Binayak Sen (who brought attention to unlawul "encounter" killings in Chattisgarh) through his documentary Anjam. Just before his arrest he was planning a documentary on displacement.

Kumar Ketkar (editor, Loksatta). Residence attacked by a mob from the Shiv Sangram Sanghatana. He had written a satirical piece on plans to instal Shivaji Maharaj's statue in the Arabian Sea.

Prashant Rahi (former correspondent, The Statesman). Arrested under charges of sedition, conspiracy and attempt of waging war against the State. He had been personally involved in movements such as the agitation against Tehri Dam. [His daughter's campaign here]

Rahi's arrest, says a Tehelka story, is closely related in motivation with the arrests of Prafull Jha (former bureau chief, Dainik Bhaskar), Govindam Kutty (editor, People's March), Pittala Srisailam, Lachit Bordoloi. All are journalists who sympathize with and cover the grassroots.


These are just a handful episodes in a an increasing tide of attacks against the media. To my mind, the trend is alarming.

History shows freedom isn't a gift; it is something to fight for.

Yet, I find that just a pitiful 55 people have signed up for their cause; a signing up that requires nothing more than an armchair signature and no further action.

Today the Wall Street Journal reported that India's press is only "partly free"; Freedom House 2008 rankings put it at number 77 among the 195 nations surveyed.

No surprise.

Update: The Chattisgarh police failed to file the chargesheet against Ajay TG within the mandatory 90 day period. So finally, he was granted statutory bail and released from prison on 5 Aug, 2008. However, the police have not yet closed the case. In other words, there are severe restrictions on his freedom to travel and he had furnish a personal bond for bail.

Enough with the preaching!

Thought I'd take a break from my usual ranting in this post and instead suggest some travel destinations. Guantanamo Bay sound good to you?

No, I am not kidding.

Apolitical?

Apolitical appears in the dictionary. And abounds in lofty speeches. But I doubt you'll find it anywhere else. Thing is, it doesn't really exist.

Of course, you will always find someone who insists he is apolitical. Typically, he will tell you he doesn't care which government comes to power, because it won't make a damn difference, no one's going to improve anything, sigh. And you'll nod your head, aaah that's so true.

But look close. Chances are, he couldn't care less because each of the political parties with a chance of coming into power will protect his interests. He need not care.

There are always those whose turf is protected no matter who comes to power: No one will order metropolitan cities be razed to make way for a dam. No one will decree fancy bungalows be confiscated to construct a national highway. Not happening - even if that is technically the best route. Even if the people so displaced are in a better position to relocate their livings as compared to say, tribals.

There is always a better-off section of society - a minority in numbers, but a heavyweight in power because it owns more resources (In India, for instance, Just 12.2% of the households were in the high-income bracket. More than half the population lives below the poverty line.)

Being apolitical, in short, is a luxury for those who can afford it. It is a political statement of comfort with status quo - and every bit as political as a desire for revolution.

Similarly, you will find innumerable businesses that claim to be apolitical. Yet, they offer support to and abide by whoever comes to power - absolute stooges for status quo.

[You may argue - convincingly - that of course businesses will want stability else how can they make profits efficiently? True and unavoidable. But all I ask is let's not label the support to existing power structures as apolitical.]

[Another word businesses never admit to is activism. They may advertise everywhere and all the time. They may block roads for a sponsored marathon. They may lobby through party donations. They may use their coffers to fight long-drawn court cases. But none of these activities is activism unless and until it is done by their enemy/NGO which for instance advertises against fur, takes them to court for ground water, holds a protest march, whatever]

------

Which is all a really long prologue to the over-usage of the A-word by the Olympic Committee recently.

...apparently they are not a political organisation

...apparently their decision to hold the Olympics in China is not political (just monetary)

That's rich, coming from an organisation that did not let South Africa participate for about 3 decades on the grounds of its Apartheid Policy.

That's also a load of bull, as the games have a long history of political protests.

That apart, letting China host the Olympic Games is certainly not apolitical as:

-- it is a clear signal that the Olympics Committee is ready to embrace China, no matter what its human rights record, if it has the money

-- it is is a clear acquiescence to the political principle of One-China Policy (Tibet flags unfurled by athletes at the Olympic venues will lead to sanction)

--It is an agreement that China's "sovereign matters" are its to oversee, and Olympic purse strings will not be used to bully its house to order.

Am I making a case against the holding of Olympics in China? No.

If we tried finding a perfect country to hold the Olympics, we'd likely never hold them again.

What I'm saying is that The Olympic Committe should stop playing the apolitical charade of penalising political acts of athletes.

It should also shut up all its weeping about the Tibet "activists" and the Falun Gong "activists" and the various other "political" NGOs from getting their five minutes of fame against the innumerable Coke ads that we will be forced to see.

The Great Indian Fiscal Budget

The Indian Budget finally takes note of the farm credit crisis – starting with a US$15 billion write-off for non-performing loans in the sector. The measures may reek of populism just in time for elections, but the bigger question is, will they deliver the greater good?

Every tenth Indian is a farmer.

Every thirty minutes or so, one of them commits suicide.

And that’s the official (read underestimated) number. They end their lives mostly by drinking pesticide; they are increasingly driven to it by unmanageable debt. Yet, they have been largely ignored by mainstream media and remain out of the urban consciousness.

But once in a while, they reach limelight. Last time they managed front-page coverage when the technologically-savvy, FDI-attracting and critically-acclaimed state Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu lost an election – a loss that no one predicted but everyone post-facto easily explained. Media discovered at long last that Hyderabad may have turned Cyberabad, but a good part of the rest of his state was turning cemetery at the same time.

That pretty much sums up why Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s government gave the budget it did last month. This was its fifth and final budget; elections aren’t too far.

The Election Budget

In 2004, the Congress party (which leads the ruling national coalition) used the common man platform to win the election. But it didn’t do enough to stem India’s human development index from moving in an unflattering direction. Even more worryingly, it performed badly in some key state elections in recent months.

The result is a budget that can be labeled populist with ease. Income tax slabs have been changed to effectively reduce the tax burden. Excise duties on all goods stand reduced, with small cars and two-wheelers winning exceptional cuts. Developmental projects ranging across irrigation, electrification, education and transportation have received considerable funds and a mention in the speech – they all add up to the promise of inclusive growth.

But the head turner in terms of scale and controversy is the “loan waiver”. It seeks to absolve small and marginal farmers (those with land holdings up to 2 hectares) of their unpaid loans. For larger famers, a rebate of 25% of the loan will be given against payment of the balance 75%. The bill – a whopping Rs600 billion (US$15 billion).

The loan waiver has been largely read as a political stunt by observers. Nevertheless, the stunt brings relief to 40 million farmers. The loan waiver is actually in the nature of a write-off: it is applicable only to non-performing loans that were already overdue in year-end 2007 and remained unpaid at the date of the budget. Given that these write-offs are entirely unanticipated, the beneficiaries will be genuine cases. In any case, as microfinance major Grameen Bank’s experience suggests, willful default is not really a malaise of this sector.

Interestingly, this move to address private debt comes at a time when capitalist icon United States, (also, near election year) is trying to protect homeowners and buffer them from the excesses of its banking sector. Clearly, debt restructuring, routinely done for corporate clients, has its role for individuals too – especially when the circumstances impact en masse.

That hasn’t stopped detractors from crying foul in India’s case, especially as the number involved is big. So it is pertinent to ask:

How big is Rs600 billion?

Rs600 billion is about 3% of system loans (estimates Citi). It will impact the fiscal deficit forecast of 2.5%, but to what extent is not known as the modalities of the write-off have not been announced so far. There has only been talk of providing liquidity to banks as compensation.

Further, judging from analyst reports, Rs600 billion is not big enough to rock the Sensex. Most agree that the current budget doesn’t move the market – except in the short term, and that due to increase in short term capital gain (up from 10% to 15%). “(The budget) is not decisive for market direction or level,” comments analyst Aditya Narain of Citi.

Unfortunately, Rs600 billion is not enough to rescue the farmer either. According to Indian press, four out of every ten rupees are owed to private, expensive moneylenders because bank credit is scarce. This segment has been entirely ignored.

Too little, too late

Private moneylenders may seem like an untenable segment – an entirely different animal from banks, which are limited in number, regulated by law, and thus amenable to policy implementation. But they can be roped in, says P Sainath, veteran rural journalist whose body of work earned him the Magsaysay award last year. He points out to the example laid by the state of Kerala where a debt relief commission was formed to broker settlements between the lenders and loanees.

That opportunity – as well as several others to attack the root cause of low incomes in agriculture – has been missed. “There is nothing in the budget that will raise farmer income. The waiver has to be located among several other steps that have not been taken,” says Sainath. The steps taken have their share of problems too.

Seems all poor families are poor in their own way. Take for instance the Vidharba region, address to a significant number of farmer suicides and an insignificant number of rural banks, where banking accounts for no greater than one-third of all farmer loans. Since private moneylenders are not covered in the budget, a high proportion of the poorest farmers are left out of the loop.

Among those Vidharba farmers fortunate enough to have bank credit, few are eligible for 100% write off - the average land holding in the region is 3 hectares (their land has lower productivity and irrigation, consequently they often own larger tracts).

Naturally, land-quality and bank-presence vary across India. Since the budget has not been customized to account for the differences, benefits will vary widely too. Counter-intuitively, the skewness works against the Congress, says Sainath: “ it undermines the farm base of the Congress in Vidarbha.”

In response to criticism and with a belated enlightenment, Congress’s heir apparent Rahul Gandhi (with three prime ministers in his bloodline) gave a speech in the post-budget session two weeks after the budget. He requested that the 2-hectare cut-off limit be adjusted for productivity of land. He also proposed that the cut-off date be adjusted to account for different crop cycles.

The tweaking will probably make it through and be a part of the final budget. But the matter is far from over or adequate.


Reprinted with permission from The Asset, who I write this article for.


Suggested further reading:
When is a sop not a sop?
Oh! What a lovely waiver

Not Quite Perfect

Proponents of free market like to believe that the market is perfect; that sooner or later, it gives the customer exactly what it asks for.

The logic is that if Soap A is delivering the fragrance of Mrs X's armpit, which arguably no one except Mr X likes, then no one will buy it (not even Mr X - he gets it free). No soaps sold mean the manufacturer will incur losses - and viola - he will change the perfume formula to George Clooney's whiff. Now arguably, that's something we all want.

So we will all go on a buying spree and skyrocketing sales will make the manufacturer stay course with the product. As a result: we all get what we want.

Money, the most disinterested judge of things, has helped us by indicating what exactly we want and forced the manufacturer to deliver it.

Sound logic - and it works most times... but not every time.


The fashion industry sells all sorts of things. From umbrellas to skirts to umbrella-cum-skirts. Let us for the moment leave aside the fine line between art and madness and let us also ignore whether certain celebrities are essentially Emperors in New Clothes. I shall not argue whether the haute couture industry ends up stitching what we'd like to wear in public.

My only expectation from the market is that people fit into what they choose to buy.

If Mango wants to sell more dresses, it had better get its consumers body proportions right. Else Zara will thrash its market share simply by ensuring that more women fit into its frocks. And when that happens Mango will be forced to discover women have hips and redo its sizing chart. Happy Day!

So why hasn't it happened?

I for instance, struggle to shop in Hong Kong. When I try jeans, the length suggests I should be at least 2ft taller. When I put on a jacket, the shoulders fit but the buttons won't close. And God forbid I ever try on a dress again - each half of my body demands its own separate size!

No I am not heavy, not even polite-speak "healthy". I will need to eat at McDonalds for at least 6 months before AXA increases my health insurance premium.

Nor am I the only one who faces this struggle. I could name a long list friends to vouch for it. In fact, I could name several studies that confirm it. Here's one pointing the problem even half-way across the world:

.. yearlong study... claims that 4 out of 10 [women] have trouble finding clothes that fit them, mainly because sizes are inconsistent from one outlet to another and because what is on the racks is too small.

A government-sponsored report, Spain.
[FYI the sample was not biased towards 'big girls'. It covered more than 10,000 women aged from 12 to 70. Only about 1 in 10 was obese.]


You may argue that the rise of plus-size brand suggests the market already has an inkling that it is failing to serve certain customers and is moving to restore the balance - but I do not think this is the right example. Big size brands are only fringe players yet. And honestly, there is a difference between large size and right size.

I think the market is working - but not quite how we expected it to. Instead of stitching clothes to the size of real women - the market is trying to make real women shrink themselves into the shape of clothes it makes!

It does this by promoting the idea that thinner is prettier. You can see across media - advertisements, movies, videos, celebrities - anything being promoted is stick thin.

The unfortunate result is women modifying their bodies unnaturally if need be. Excessive dieting, eating disorders and plastic surgeries are all in demand.

Yes the market is a strong force. But that is not always such a good thing.

I know I should have become immune to it by now but even after two years of dosage, Star News drives me insane. I would like to know WHOSE idea it is to make all their reporters speak as if they are hosting India's Most Wanted!

Even when they are reporting... ummmm reporting is too strong a word for what they do... well, even when they are spewing generalities about a cricket match that India won (on TV in the background as I write) their tone is railing and ranting. If I didn't know Hindi, I'd assume from their style that some woman was murdered with a gory flourish, and her children were kidnapped, and the murderer disappeared, only to be discovered now two years later, with limbs in his freezer and a knife sporting her dried blood still intact in his coat pocket.* Or worse.

Here's a sample of the channel's standardised speaking style. If you don't speak Hindi - close your eyes, listen for two minutes, and tell me - am I not right?


* Sorry, I've been reading Stephen King

In Memorium

Were she alive, chances are I would have been denouncing the dynastic rule she represents and amnesties she gifted her criminally-charged husband.

But in her death, her loss makes one keenly aware of how pivotal she was to transform Pakistan into a secular and democratic nation.

She will be sorely missed in the fight against terrorism.


But what's with all the rioting over "grief" in her country? Goondaraj, the rule of mob, does no credit to either her memory or the the causes she said she represented.