The prognosis of 24-hour syndrome

After 3 failed attempts to write something substantial, I am finally posting something. The idea for this post came up during a discussion with a friend about the Indian media. The emergence of India as a secular, democratic republic coincided with the rise of an independent media or the so-called Fourth Estate in democracy. This does not mean that there was no press/media before the independence but it simply meant that now they will not be subjected to whimsical orders from the establishment, which led to crack-down on vernacular press before independence. So, the press/media became a watchdog for the infant Indian democracy and since then it has developed a lot, both in a good and bad sense. The liberalization of the economy and the country in 1991 opened the floodgates for the opening up of the media. The monopoly of Doordarshan, the state television channel, was challenged by a whole slew of channels- both from western media empires and homegrown channels. This development led to extensive exposure of the Indian public to various foreign cultures which had their own pros and cons. Without getting into this debate of the "bad western influences", we should look at the condition/ influence of Indian media in today's times. In my personal opinion, the media, in general, and news media, in particular, has undergone massive levels of deterioration in quality. The "24-hour syndrome" has led to the demise of serious journalism and the emergence of frivolous news reporting. Not one day passes when a channel does not claim that somebody in a remote Indian village has had the "fortune of having a divine meeting" or some toddler falling into an open manhole or a ditch. The frequency of such events occurring has increased manifold. Another particularly troubling sign in Indian media is that it has started its own "judiciary" by convicting "alleged criminals" outside of courts. The basic premise of justice is "innocent till proven otherwise" which the media has twisted into "guilty till proven otherwise". This is true not just for the electronic media but also for print media. Although there are some upsides of this "media activism", if you will. One of them is the fact that now the powerful cannot necessarily get away with any shit. In the last few years, we have seen several examples where "media activism" coupled with middle-class ire and concerted public opinions have led to expedited hearings and convictions in cases where the accused belonged to the high and mighty of Indian society. What is exceedingly horrific in all of this is the manner in which a great majority of television channels aim at "scandalous reporting" which can increase TRPs. A case in point is a teenager's death just outside Delhi where several TV channels pronounced the girl's father to be guilty and the "Sherlock Holmes of Indian TV" showed us how the case was an ensemble of various sexual misconduct like incest, wife-swapping, rape, etc. This was done in complete negligence of the privacy of the family, emotional trauma of the people involved and above all, it proved to be a mockery of the justice system. The entertainment channels are worse off. The series which are being shown on Indian television is idiotic at best and has various superstitions and false beliefs. The directive principles of state policy of the Indian constitution suggest that the state shall strive to weed out superstitions from the society but in 21st century India, it is the massive penetrance of cable TV which is a threat to the fulfillment of this aim by the Indian state. Being an opponent of state censorship, I don't believe that the government should censor them but I do believe that there should be some "self-regulation" by the media with minimal government oversight to see that the programs do not promote obsolete ideas. Lastly, I think the Indian media is currently filled with sub-standard journalists who lack incisive abilities, intelligence, and requisite knowledge to investigate and analyze any news. This is because of the simple fact that journalism was never glamorous until now and hence not many smart people become journalists. With the money and glamor coming into the media, I hope that some institutions of excellence for journalism should be established which can harbinger an age of mature journalism in India which can enable the media to act as the genuine"fourth estate of democracy" and be the watchdog for the citizen's rights.

First thoughts about US...

I am a second year PhD student in the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics at UNC, Chapel Hill, USA. I am working on the general area of epigenetics and I am interested in unraveling some of the most fascinating processes and mechanisms in biomedical sciences which pertain to transcription, cellular homeostasis including but not limited to signaling, division and death.

On the personal front, I am kinda soaking in the experience of being in the world's most powerful democracy. Now the question which comes to my mind is how the world's oldest democracy,India, is so far behind the world's largest (area-wise) democracy. The causes are many. It always helps to begin early - India became independent in 1947 while USA in 1776. This helped this country to absorb the advantages of the industrial revolution in a manner which suited it. It created a thriving business and entrepreneurial class among its citizens. Developments in science and technology followed and this entire process was helped by the oft-repeated but very crucial principles of liberty, freedom, equality and other basic tenets of democracy. It also helps when more than half of the world lives in ignorance. One does not have to face much competition.

In contrast, we, India, were the unfortunate late-starters. We were insulated from the rest of the world because of various cultural and religious reasons which did backfire upon us in terms of development. Once we got independence, we started our nation-building on the same kinda of principles but somewhere along the lines, I regret to say, we never meant what we said. A large number of vested interests started influencing decisions which could and would make or break a nation. The situation is more alarming, than one would expect and the sooner our country realizes and make amends for it, the better it is for us. We have some pretty awesome things to be proud of and yes, our unparalleled human resource, is one of them. We need to use this to our advantage by giving each individual enough space and opportunity to grow into whatever he/she wishes to be. The more free and independent our young people are today, the less will be the chance of our nation faltering at any junction.

The great Indian debate on civil rights aka decriminalization of homosexuality

The prudes from various religions have combined together as a "unit of idiocy" and then want to dictate terms to a billion and a half people. Who the hell are they to peep into people's bedrooms and tell them who to sleep with? Also, they have no constitutional and legal authority to force their obscurantist philosophy on India. They can keep their "rationale" with themselves . The "logic" proposed, if u will, so far are not just purely dumb but point to their being individuals and organizations of "acute sub-normal intelligence".

1. You can not equate bestiality with homosexuality since the latter encompasses the word "consent" (for the religious dumb wits, it means agreeing to) which the former lacks. You also cannot equate Prostitution with "consensual homosexuality" because the former may involve suppression of one party in lieu of money.
2. The majority of any society will always be heterosexual and hence the idea that mankind is gonna stop breeding is kindaa ridiculous. It did not when homosexuality was prevalent in Greece and ancient India. It did not when Babar was homosexual and it is not crumbling in "civilized western democracies".
3. The idea that it is "unnatural" is fallacious. There are at least 1500 species of animals (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bisexual-species, for the academically inclined) who have shown homosexual tendencies.
4. The basic tenet of freedom is individual liberty and any criminalization of "bedroom behavior" is an infringement of any body's individual space. As the verdict clearly states that constitutional morality is what is crucial, not the Society's. If we were to go by society's moral standards, we would still have sati, child marriages, stoning of individuals and shit like that. so, lets keep social morality out of the equation.

Individuals who framed the Indian constitution decided upon a democratic form of government where there in freedom of individuals, rights to minorities and various other progressive and modern ideologies like secularism. The same sacred text tells us that one is free to lead his/her life in a way which suits him/her till the time that freedom infringes upon others. The freedom enshrined in the constitution then ceases to exist and the idea of greater good comes to the fore.

In this case, the verdict was "to decriminalize homosexuality insofar it is consensual". The verdict was not to "allow public indecency", as is being interpreted by various people. The honorable high court did not allow for expression of lewd public behavior, as is being construed by many of our fellow countrymen.

It is quite perplexing to see the kinds of rationale which is being put by the people who oppose it. The scenario which has been painted makes the society look so "anarchic" which is counter-intuitive since it is the "private acts" which has been "decriminalized". As far as "public display of affection" goes, the Indian police will make sure that such things do not happen, as it does when married hetero-sexual couples are concerned ;P. (I think everybody knows about the "efficiency" of Indian police in such matters- lets not talk about crimes/ terrorism (actual law and order issues-the boring stuff- etc...). Also the image which is being shown and referred to is the result of media being pre-occupied with painting the gay pride parade as exhibitionist. The parade is a historical day in remembrance of the great stonewalling event of new york in the late 60's. This is akin to innumerable religious processions/political meetings which disrupt normal life and are definitely repulsive for various people but those are allowed in a democracy and so they continue.

It is not a matter of "accepting something since it is being followed in the west". It is a matter of minority rights, sexual minority in this case and hence an issue of human rights. Let us be very clear on this.