The Limits of Institutional Independence: The Supreme Court’s ED Director Judgment

“The struggle of memory against forgetting”: The Kenyan Supreme Court’s Judgment on Transitional Justice

ICLP Turns 9 || The Leap of Faith

FB Posts or Blog?

I opted for a sabbatical from my favourite networking activity – Facebook posts, at the beginning of this year.

There was no trigger, no outrageous troll on my page, no incendiary comments – none of the things that put people off social networks. I had established contact with many people that I had lost touch with for decades, and was thrilled to be communicating with them as if time had stood still. I loved the old, familiar banter, and was a sucker for all the nostalgia that was invariably invoked. Hazy memories of persons and places became sharp again. There was a certain psychological comfort, too – a little like returning home after a long, arduous and sometimes lonesome journey.

Facebook had established a “equal footing” relationship with my younger relatives, alumni of the institutions that I studied in, colleagues, and old associates. The ripple steadily spread, and second-degree & third-degree contacts were a delight to establish. One could sometimes hear the unspoken word, the unexpressed thought or a putative idea, and it felt nice to be part of such a varied and heterogenous milieu. The mind grew; the soul, too –  a little by little! There was (and is) much to be thankful for. The credit goes to the eclectic individuals and groups I came into contact with – good human beings, scientists, authors, artists, professionals, thinkers and emotional co-travellers.

There was something that I was missing, though.

On Facebook, one responded immediately. Often, it was instinctively. Many times, the response could have been better, or more nuanced. At other times, when one had to introspect on posts and events, the time had passed, and what was in one’s mind could no longer be related to the original post. Hijacks that happen are part of the networking fun, but often diluted the ideas being discussed. Conversations sometimes had so many participants, one could never relate to the flow of thoughts and words.

The next concern was privacy – how could one confine posts to a few people, or responses, without violating others’ privacy? Sometimes, there is a certain issue one recognised about a post or friend. One wants to respond, perhaps be of assistance or simply convey support, or even disagree with passionately. I found doing this was difficult – as threads would veer off into unintended directions. I had also seen a few of my friends deeply affected by comments made by others, and no redress was possible.

The final concern was topicality. Much of what I would like to share through an original post may not interest more than a handful of people – and I would be boring a whole lot of my friends across the spectrum who had a different wavelength. This too, I had seen happening: Some of the posts that I thought carried some important messages were completely ignored; clearly, they were either too disturbing, or the emotional quotient was unpleasantly high. These included my posts, too.

During the last 5 months and a little more that I have been on this little vacation of mine, I have enjoyed the great luxury of both introspection, and anonymity. That was until very concerned friends started messaging & mailing me to inquire about the state of my health (and mind, though they didn’t say so!). It was a tough job convincing them that I am on song, and as fond of the world around me as I have always been. Then came the inevitable question: “Why are you so silent then”? There have been many times when family, friends and others have fondly prayed for some silence from me, and this was a very new experience!

That is when I remembered that I had this Blog – to which I had contributed nothing. It struck me that this gave me an opportunity to post at leisure, nuance my thoughts, add tags so that only those that were interested in those topics would be compelled to hear me, and I could be more honest and personal in what I wrote without offending or alarming my contacts and friends. Many of you know I have varied interests, but not all fruits can go into fruit salad – one needs to address the right audience with appropriate messages.

I am happy, therefore, to invite all of you to view this BLOG from time to time, respond to what I write in whatever manner you wish to. I solemnly promise  I will not take offence at your responses, nor will I respond with offence or malice. Differences of opinion can be freely aired, and I believe I will be enriched by them.

As for Facebook, I am a bit of squatter right now, and wish to enjoy being a fly on the wall for some more time. I can always message my friends, as they too can me. It will be a while before I get back there…

Did I hear a sigh of relief…!!!

The evening news and what follows….

Watching evening news on television has become the routine accompaniment to dinner in our household – that is practically the only time that I watch TV. Fed by the usual desire to find something thought-provoking, I often switch channels around. I am constrained to make the following observations.

Why are several of our respected anchors so strident, judgemental and overbearing when they anchor discussions? If a legal luminary is interrupted repeatedly when the law is being discussed, if the police officer is rudely dismissed when he is speaking about departmental procedure, if the political leader is incessantly badgered with asides and comments  before he/she can make a point – and all this by the anchors – I see no way in which we as the viewing public can form sound opinions! If we cannot get cogent information from the media, where shall we get it from?

The decibel levels at these discussions and debates is a again a disincentive to responsible discourse. News channels are not soap boxes where participants can be pelted irresponsible and the last man standing goes home the winner. I wonder sometimes why learned people consent to take part in debates again after they have been through this kind of assault.

I am particularity disturbed by the over simplification of issues. We would not need the Constitution, Parliament, Courts, Executive and Institutions with their codified methods of working if a matter could be dealt with  in a TV studio as a response to a question that runs somewhat like this: “Tell me, tell me straight, the people of this country are watching you and will judge you – are you/ is ******/your party etc. etc.. guilty or not?” Which form of democracy are we upholding, and what rule of law? This was precisely what was done in kangaroo courts! The good people who appear on these shows would have sued for defamation/slander for much less had the insinuations been made in the print media – why does the visual media revel in such practices? The contagion seems to be spreading – anchors that used to be pleasant, polished, suave and impressive are today appearing predatory in their endeavour to grab “eyeballs”.

The anchors in many cases are the Editors themselves – who then do we appeal to? I have to make this appeal here to the editors of all these channels:

1. Promote discussion – let facts come out, not “views” alone
2. Do not pre-judge an issue, however provocative or emotive it is – let the judgement be formed at the end of the discussion
3. Focus on sound key points – do not let the discussion go astray with snide remarks and digressions
4. Keep sound levels low – we can hear all you good points equally well at normal volumes
5. Do not strip away the dignity of participants by making observations about them, and not giving them an opportunity to disagree with you on air
6. Do not intimidate, but encourage, if you think something is being deliberately concealed, bring it out politely but firmly
7. Repeated expressions of incredulity regarding what is being said reflects poorly on your own choice of participants – it you don’t believe them time and again, why do you call them?
8. Eyeballs and TRPs can flow from the relevance, variety and importance of the issues discussed – the anchors ability to browbeat participants can only bring about the base instincts that ragging and bullying do among watchers.

I hope CNN-IBN, TIMES NOW, HEADLINES TODAY, NDTV, TV 9, NEWS X and my own regional channels will take heed.

I have this friend M. Not the one Ian Fleming created, but a flesh-and-blood one. Personally charming, great raconteur, fierce sense of loyalty, dedicated to work and devoted to loved ones. Has a profound dislike for desi characteristics – behaviour, conduct, habits, cleanliness, morals, past, present, future, etc.., etc.., etc.. A person one would hold in high esteem, but for this line of thought.

There are many others like this that I have known; open to ideas of every kind but profoundly resentful and plaintive when it comes to their Indianness. Easy to put it down to snobbery, but is is anything but that. They are modest about their own capabilities, appreciative of those that do well. They have very laudable goals in their lives. They are helpful, human in the broadest sense and fiercely opposed to injustice and understanding of human suffering. But……they passionately dislike what they call Indianness.

I am not sure if this is seen in other nationalities……

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!