Indian Politicians Challenged to Embrace Debating

From http://www.merinews.com/catFull.jsp?articleID=137053

Debate shows: Necessary for a healthy democracy
Debates are the articles of electronic media. It must be an anodyne experience for democracy when it sees a viewpoint being dissected to reach at a righteous conclusion. What stops our politicians from appearing on debate programmes on TV?.
CJ: Pramod Khilery

DEBATES AND democracy are twins. They just can’t be separated. When noted economist and Noble laureate Dr Amartya Sen raised some fundamental issues confronting democracy in his book, he couldn’t help giving it the title ‘The Argumentative Indian’. Dr Sen couldn’t have titled the book more aptly, for Indians have been argumentative since aeons.

Politics and current state of affairs have been amongst the favourite topics for a vast majority of Indians to ramble on. Even now, in this purported fast age, these discussions rule the roost in hinterlands. In villages and mofussils, as the evening begins to set in, people too find themselves rushing towards chaupals (an assembly place) to be part of common discussion. Even in the case of quarrels or petty crimes the tradition has been to arrive at a compromise or solution through discussion keeping law at bay. These debates may not play any significant role in national affairs but they at least are illustrative of a fact that the essential ingredient of democracy had always been inherent in the Indian psyche.

Now let me divert your attention to another kind of debates. I call them television debates. With the knowledge that television has become inexpensive and ingrained into our society coupled with the fact that politics interests most people, especially in rustic India than in metros, I believe these television debates deserve more viewership and greater respect from possible participants. A serious question, which comes to my mind is how many of our nation-pullers think of these debates as an ideal platform to hard sell their ideas to public? And how many of us viewers, who might be news limpets in strict sense of word, do care to watch debates?

With the deluge of news channels, both in Hindi and English, we have some worthwhile choices to make. At the risk of being labelled didactic, I would dare say that even those, who don’t have satellite channels can switch over to DD1, DD News and Lok Sabha channel to watch and listen to a variety of debates including political debates. To be very true, I haven’t seen many people, at least around me, taking any keen interest in debates. This fact becomes a matter of concern as well as amazement when I see simple villagers with zilch literacy levels always ready to listen to their leaders in person or on television.

What purpose do debates serve and why I want more debates to be telecast on television? For me, debates are the articles of electronic media. As newspapers would lose their soul and become light and enervated if they are not fed on the healthy diet of trenchant and question-raising articles and editorials, electronic media, too, would fall to the levels of being nothing short of cheap entertainment channels if they choose to ignore the importance of debates.

Doing away with debates or not trying to improve their quality are some of the traits already being exhibited by some channels of late. Perhaps, more business oriented and less journalistic ethoed minds find it more prudent to capitulate before ‘market pressure’ and spare more air time for ‘breaking news’ and ‘special shows’ than debates. It must be an anodyne experience for democracy when it sees a viewpoint being dissected and analysis being formed to reach at a righteous conclusion most perfectly fit in the given situation. In the wake of this fact, it would be a huge service to the cause of democracy as well as value and class of their own channels if news channels expend a bit of their energy to produce world class debate programmes with the necessary promotion.

Now, we veer our gaze from news channels and focus at democracy. As I stated earlier, these are the debates, which lie at the crux of any form of governmental system, which calls itself democratic. And just like the idol of a deity is placed in a temple and bhajans (devotional songs) are sung around by devotees, idol of goddess of democracy rests in a temple, we call Parliament. I believe this deity, too, deserves her own bhajans by her die hard devotees.

Same holds true for all such small temples built across the country. Now it is up to these devotees to visit their temples and sing saccharine bhajans steeped in utmost devotion to the deity if they so claim to be. If one calls oneself devotee, then his craving for darshan (sight) of his god must outweigh his other wishes and yearnings. But sadly, to the consternation of temple and goddess alike, these devotees seem more interested in being a corrupt and venal pujari(priest) than mere devotees. More than the idol it is the religious offering by common people that they have their eyes on.

When was the last time we had seen, or they had allowed us to be witness to their arduous debates about any one problem plaguing millions in this country. Last time when I tuned into Lok Sabha channel to see the proceedings of the Parliament, all that I got to see was scant presence and bland questions and answers. May be, they don’t want us to be a party to their more intense and effulgent demeanor when they indulge in ignominious squabbles (which turns physical sometimes) and hastened and irresponsible walk outs.

When Western observers heap encomiums and label India, along with China, as a rising superpower, our politicians lap it up because it suits them. A stamp of approval and a sweet lolly pop to be offered to general public, that too from the West, what else can rival it?

I take respite in the fact that those, whose memories have been labeled too short and too weak are not that twerp as they are made out or thought to be by their own leaders. In the last general elections, when the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) tried to offer this lolly pop of ’India Shining’, they paid the price by losing power.

Coming to television debates again, one factor that I couldn’t help noticing was the appearance of same political faces, mostly crafted leaders, emphasising their party’s viewpoints on different channels. It seems that this might be the one reason that they are indispensable to their respective parties.

What is amazing, in a democratic country like India, is that we don’t see many politicians, especially, who claim to have large mass followings and being in the thick of the things using television debates as a medium to connect to masses. Their obvious retort must be: Why debate when there are rallies?

I may be utterly wrong but from what I have seen in these rallies, I can vouch for the fact that these rallies are nothing short of pretentious hogwash of the highest level. People are brought packed in trucks and tractors to kranti maidans and then are unpacked like belongings. This constitutes some 60 per cent of the crowd. Rest includes curious natives and onlookers of the place and party workers themselves. A political leader be labours about his virtues and vices of his adversary. A large swathe of party workers make sure a grand applause at regular intervals with rants of zindabad (long live) interspersed spasmodically. In this imbroglio, our political leader, the only saviour of his people, prefers to turn a blind eye to those fainting in excruciating sun and his drivel continues. Of course, these rallies can’t fill in for debates because there one runs the risk of being stopped and exposed to incisiveness of questions.

We have just seen the victory of presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama and have witnessed the torrent of countless debates he had had with his rival candidate to win the nomination, bringing to the fore almost every facet of their whole being. John McCain, too, won his nomination after being through inexorable debates.

We also saw that all the candidates, who were in the fray, did not see it beneath their dignity to appear on television shows and indulging in not only debate but in banter as well. On several occasions, we had hosts like Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel making fun of candidates contending for most important job in the world. We saw Jon Stewart and Stephan Colbert taking cudgels on behalf of the public to grope and sound out candidates aspiring to be their next president.

We are aware that India is not America but we also know that debate is a debate whether India or America. I bemuse when I try to find out what stops our politicians, especially those, who play a more crucial role in running the country and remain at the helm, from appearing on debate programmes on television or arranging for live telecast of internal debates of their parties. If they can demand support from a voter it is an obligation on their part to tell voter who they are and how they work.

Will we ever get to see a Mulayam Singh Yadav debating with Prakash Karat on his decision to support the United Progressive Alliance (UPA) on the issue of nuclear deal? Will a Prakash Singh Badal ever take part in a debate to tell us about the bottlenecks in electoral politics? Will a Mayawati ever decide to stand among her political bete noires on the same platform for answering questions straight either from them or from public? Will a Om Prakash Chautala ever deem television debates and their audience worthy enough to spare few hours from his busy life to ponder upon whether corruption or corrupted are like termites or not? Will a Jayalalitha ever feel like an ordinary mortal human being to have us believe that she doesn’t resent questions no matter however sharp they are and from whoever they are? Will a Sonia Gandhi hold a debate if someone dares to challenge Rahul Gandhi’s direct accession to the top post or the challenger will simply see himself getting punished on disciplinarian account? Will a Manmohan Singh dare say, "Why this politics about nuclear deal, let us debate what is good or what is bad in full view of the country, whose interests I claim to serve by having this deal done?"

We often hear politicians whining about sting operations and sensationalism, the two evils electronic media is besotted with, and proposing regulation of media. Definitely evil and provocative sting operations and sensationalism must be checked but it would make us equally happier if they also inspire media in making quality debate programmes, arranging for their own debates and doing their bit to serve the goddess of democracy in addition to what they are already doing.

As we see and read, impression comes that our politicians, our ‘representatives’, who appear proud of our diversity and secularism don’t think it fit enough to ask us, every time they change their side or for that matter even views,. Will they ever be concerned to show us a display of what lies at the very crux of their favourite monologues ie, democracy and secularism, by agreeing to appear on debate shows more regularly and in utter sincerity. I am sure no reality show will be like this.