PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2014 ID-56738
.
14.5.14 Normalising the Corporate-Communal Idiom: .
Can the Mainstream Media Any Longer Claim to Call Itselfa 'Pillarof Democracy'?· .
I .
Media-manufactured-Modi-mania (M4) ; , "' .
continues to be the most unique feature Modi's No-Holds:Barred Communal Hate-Mongering .
ofthe Elections 2014. On economic and human rights Issues, On 4 May, Modi ln his Asansol speech said, "Those (from .
big corporate media have always sided with the corpor~~e Bangladesh) who observe Durgashtami, they are a part of our .
ideology and blacked-out people's voices. However; for ruling Hlndustan and they will stay here. But we will deport those class mainstream political parties and views, it maintained, who are Infiltrators." In a tweet on 4 May, Modi said, "Those who were children of Bharat Mata, those who observe so ~r, a degree of 'pluralitY and 'balance'. What Is new Ourgashtaml they are my brothers. We must treat them like .
this time Is media's open propaganda for one political children of India." .
personality, throwing to winds all pretensions ~fpolitfcal .
Don1t these words constitute dangerous hate-speech where Modi .
'plurality' that media In 'llberar capitalist 'democracy' .
t;Jef/nes ~Hindustan' and 'children of mother lndlcr in .terms of .
dalm to represent. .
Hindu religious customs-whether someone is to be treated as an· Indian or an Illegal 'infiltrator', Is to be based on whether they.
The government controlled media In earlier years, Indeed, .
'observe Durgashtaml' or not/ Aren't these words thoroughly .
lacked autonomy and often appeared as the propaga.nda .
unconstitutional because they imply that those ofnon-Hindufaith.
machine of the ruUng party. But Is the privatised media .
are not *part ofour Hlnduston', not *childten ofBharat Mota"'?.
'autonomous' either? Should 'Autonom~ mean onJy .
Isn't Modi making It clear that he INTENDS TO ACTas though .
'freedom from government control' and not 'freedom .
lndla~(Hindustan) Is the 'Hindusthan' or 'Hindu Rashtra' ofthe .
from corporate control'? Privatisation and huge Sangh'sfanaticdreams? Yet the media left him unquestioned · proliferation of big media channels did not bring in either and EC remained silent ~ 'plurality' of opinions or 'autonomy'. The fact that big ''----------------------.
corporates have chosen Modi as their political hero, inevitably got reflected in the political'news' and political'views' of all the media channels they have come to control. So multiplicity of channels did not mean plurality of even political views, but repetition of the same with ever increasing frequency. No wonder, some ofthe most offensive communal hate speeches by Modi and his men were ignored and eventually 'normalised' by the media. In-this context, we reproduce below, a powerful critique ofthe election-time mainstream media bynotedhistorialtand author Mukul Kesavan. .
The Tinderbox Project: The BJP and the Mainstreaming of Majoritarianism .
Mukul Kesavan .
The most interesting-and insidious-aspect of this election is the mainstreaming of the sangh parivar's principal belief: that .
India is a Hindu nation. The ideologues of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have consistently maintained that India as a nation ought to be defined .
by the culture and preferences of its Hindu majority and that minorities ought to defer to this idea of India as a Hindu nation state. The definitive statement on Hindu hegemony came from the second sarsanghchalak or supreme chief of the RSS, M.S. Golwalkar: " .the non-Hindu people in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and revere Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but the glorification of the Hindu Nation .." If they don't, they " .. may stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferentJal .treatment, not even citizens' rights.n Golwalkar's unambiguously Hindu supremacist position used to embarrass the Bharatiya Janata P~rty (not because of what he had said, but on account of the starkness with which he said it) and was often explained away by gesturing at Its context -the politics of the 1930s when India was a colonized country, threatened by Muslim separatism. The implication was that the BJP had evolved ideologically and no longer wanted Muslims to be treated as helots in republican India. .
However, after the electoral defeat of 2009, as the party regr~uped around its most polari~ing leader, Narendra Modi, it became less shy about Its Hindu supremacist project. One straw in the wind was the BJP's admission of Subramanian .
Swamy, the sole proprietor of what remained of the Janata Party, into its ranks, In 2011, Swamy wrote an article in a newspaper (DNA 16 July, 2011) that updated Golwalkar for the 21st century. This was his prescription: "Implement the uniform civil code, make learning of Sanskrit and singing of Vande Mataram mandatory, and declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus. Rename lndfa Hindustan as a nation of Hindus and those whose ancestors were Hindus.n .
Swamy joined the BJP soon afterwards in 2013 and he has been one of the BJP's most visible spokesmen through this election season, a regular in news television's panel discussions and a trenchant champion of Narendra Modi's Gujarat Model. That a man who advocates the disenfranchisement of all Muslims who don't acknowledge that they are basically lapsed Hindus should be treated as a respectable party spokesperson on prime time news tells you something about both the New Model BJP and the biases of the news industry. .
Try to imagine a Muslim advocating the assimilation of Kashmir into an Islamic caliphate, becoming a regular on .
'Left, Right & Centre' or 'The lqewshour' -or 6The Buck Stops Here' and vou begin to grasp the extent to which P.T.. .
.
.
PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2014 ID-56738
.
14.5.14 Normalising the Corporate-Communal Idiom: .
Can the Mainstream Media Any Longer Claim to Call Itselfa 'Pillarof Democracy'?· .
I .
Media-manufactured-Modi-mania (M4) ; , "' .
continues to be the most unique feature Modi's No-Holds:Barred Communal Hate-Mongering .
ofthe Elections 2014. On economic and human rights Issues, On 4 May, Modi ln his Asansol speech said, "Those (from .
big corporate media have always sided with the corpor~~e Bangladesh) who observe Durgashtami, they are a part of our .
ideology and blacked-out people's voices. However; for ruling Hlndustan and they will stay here. But we will deport those class mainstream political parties and views, it maintained, who are Infiltrators." In a tweet on 4 May, Modi said, "Those who were children of Bharat Mata, those who observe so ~r, a degree of 'pluralitY and 'balance'. What Is new Ourgashtaml they are my brothers. We must treat them like .
this time Is media's open propaganda for one political children of India." .
personality, throwing to winds all pretensions ~fpolitfcal .
Don1t these words constitute dangerous hate-speech where Modi .
'plurality' that media In 'llberar capitalist 'democracy' .
t;Jef/nes ~Hindustan' and 'children of mother lndlcr in .terms of .
dalm to represent. .
Hindu religious customs-whether someone is to be treated as an· Indian or an Illegal 'infiltrator', Is to be based on whether they.
The government controlled media In earlier years, Indeed, .
'observe Durgashtaml' or not/ Aren't these words thoroughly .
lacked autonomy and often appeared as the propaga.nda .
unconstitutional because they imply that those ofnon-Hindufaith.
machine of the ruUng party. But Is the privatised media .
are not *part ofour Hlnduston', not *childten ofBharat Mota"'?.
'autonomous' either? Should 'Autonom~ mean onJy .
Isn't Modi making It clear that he INTENDS TO ACTas though .
'freedom from government control' and not 'freedom .
lndla~(Hindustan) Is the 'Hindusthan' or 'Hindu Rashtra' ofthe .
from corporate control'? Privatisation and huge Sangh'sfanaticdreams? Yet the media left him unquestioned · proliferation of big media channels did not bring in either and EC remained silent ~ 'plurality' of opinions or 'autonomy'. The fact that big ''----------------------.
corporates have chosen Modi as their political hero, inevitably got reflected in the political'news' and political'views' of all the media channels they have come to control. So multiplicity of channels did not mean plurality of even political views, but repetition of the same with ever increasing frequency. No wonder, some ofthe most offensive communal hate speeches by Modi and his men were ignored and eventually 'normalised' by the media. In-this context, we reproduce below, a powerful critique ofthe election-time mainstream media bynotedhistorialtand author Mukul Kesavan. .
The Tinderbox Project: The BJP and the Mainstreaming of Majoritarianism .
Mukul Kesavan .
The most interesting-and insidious-aspect of this election is the mainstreaming of the sangh parivar's principal belief: that .
India is a Hindu nation. The ideologues of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh have consistently maintained that India as a nation ought to be defined .
by the culture and preferences of its Hindu majority and that minorities ought to defer to this idea of India as a Hindu nation state. The definitive statement on Hindu hegemony came from the second sarsanghchalak or supreme chief of the RSS, M.S. Golwalkar: " .the non-Hindu people in Hindusthan must either adopt the Hindu culture and language, must learn to respect and revere Hindu religion, must entertain no idea but the glorification of the Hindu Nation .." If they don't, they " .. may stay in the country wholly subordinated to the Hindu nation claiming nothing, deserving no privileges, far less any preferentJal .treatment, not even citizens' rights.n Golwalkar's unambiguously Hindu supremacist position used to embarrass the Bharatiya Janata P~rty (not because of what he had said, but on account of the starkness with which he said it) and was often explained away by gesturing at Its context -the politics of the 1930s when India was a colonized country, threatened by Muslim separatism. The implication was that the BJP had evolved ideologically and no longer wanted Muslims to be treated as helots in republican India. .
However, after the electoral defeat of 2009, as the party regr~uped around its most polari~ing leader, Narendra Modi, it became less shy about Its Hindu supremacist project. One straw in the wind was the BJP's admission of Subramanian .
Swamy, the sole proprietor of what remained of the Janata Party, into its ranks, In 2011, Swamy wrote an article in a newspaper (DNA 16 July, 2011) that updated Golwalkar for the 21st century. This was his prescription: "Implement the uniform civil code, make learning of Sanskrit and singing of Vande Mataram mandatory, and declare India a Hindu Rashtra in which non-Hindus can vote only if they proudly acknowledge that their ancestors were Hindus. Rename lndfa Hindustan as a nation of Hindus and those whose ancestors were Hindus.n .
Swamy joined the BJP soon afterwards in 2013 and he has been one of the BJP's most visible spokesmen through this election season, a regular in news television's panel discussions and a trenchant champion of Narendra Modi's Gujarat Model. That a man who advocates the disenfranchisement of all Muslims who don't acknowledge that they are basically lapsed Hindus should be treated as a respectable party spokesperson on prime time news tells you something about both the New Model BJP and the biases of the news industry. .
Try to imagine a Muslim advocating the assimilation of Kashmir into an Islamic caliphate, becoming a regular on .
'Left, Right & Centre' or 'The lqewshour' -or 6The Buck Stops Here' and vou begin to grasp the extent to which P.T.. .
.
.