Incredible India or Intolerant India? Role of Celebrities and Media in Society

During the past three months, some celebrities and writers have been accusing a section of the Indian society of being increasingly 'intolerant'. They have also returned their awards in protest. Strangely, the 'drama' of protests suddenly ceased soon after the Bihar Elections. Some suspected that this 'drama' was stage-managed to influence the electorate against a particular political party or parties. Interestingly, one of the activists who spearheaded the 'Award Wapsi" movement has since received an Award.

It is also suspected that some of the communication agencies were also involved in this 'operation defame', with the support of some of the Indian media.

Blemishing India's Image

What is disturbing to know is that in the course of these accusations against a specific sect, India as a nation got a beating in its image in the global society as a country with serious national issues of intolerance.

The Aamir Khan Controversy

After a temporary lull following the Bihar elections, film actor, Aamir Khan stirred the controversial issue of 'intolerance' again with his off-the-cuff comment. At a function he graced recently he said, "My wife Kiran and I have lived all our lives in India. For the first time, she said, should we move out of India? That's a disastrous and big statement for Kiran to make to me. She fears for her child. She fears about what the atmosphere around us will be. She feels scared to open the newspapers every day. That does indicate that there is a sense of growing disquiet." This statement re-ignited a nationwide debate and displeasure among some of the Indians, including his fans, for his lack of discretion in making a public statement of such sensitivity.

The renowned Indian music composer, A R Rahman endorsed the opinion of rising intolerance in the country. A R Rahman was referring to the 'fatwa' issued against him by an Islamic body, for composing music for a film which carried a reference to their Prophet. The Delhi Government had to cancel his public performance in September 2015 because of the threat of the fatwa. Unfortunately, these comments were assumed and debated by the media as targeting specific communities.

Action and Reaction

Newton's third law states "every action has an equal and opposite reaction". This scientific inference is equally applicable to human behaviour. When someone provokes, the natural tendency is to expect a 'reaction' from the other person. The Godhra and the Post-Godhra, the Kashmir Pandits' exodus, the banning of selected books, the terrorist attacks including that of 26/11, the 1984 Sikh riots, provocative statements by political leaders and celebrities, can be quoted as examples. When celebrities and renowned writers make provocative statements, they incite reactions from the masses. The media rarely debates on the legitimacy of the 'provocation', and instead blows the 'reactions' out of proportion. This leads to tension and emotional unrest in the society.

Recently, the Karnataka Government made an impromptu announcement of the decision to celebrate 'Tippu Jayanthi' without any section of the society demanding it. The State Government celebrated Tippu Jayanthi on the day of Deepavali Festival (10th November 2015), even though his date of birth was 20th November. Tippu Sultan, in spite of his reputation of having supported Hindu temples, he is also regarded negatively in several of the districts by different communities. To add to this provocation, a renowned artiste suggested publicly that Bengaluru Airport be renamed with Tippu's name replacing its existing name of Kempe Gowda, the Father of Bengaluru. These actions and suggestions provoked the sentiments of the majority community. They took to the streets in protest and a local leader died in a scuffle with the Police. Surprisingly, these so-called 'intellectuals' and the media blamed the protestors alone for the violence and not the Government which had incited the volatile situation. This incident created more tension in Karnataka and unnecessarily created animosity among the people who were living in harmony.

'DNA' of Indians

Traditionally, Indians have been known for their high level of tolerance in the society. 'Sarva dharma, sama bhava' (treat all faiths equally) is the essence of the Indian culture. India has tolerated even the meanest of tyrants who destroyed the Indian culture. India has never invaded any country and had never indulged in enforcing its philosophies on others. In fact, India welcomed all faiths and respected them. This tolerance is embedded in the 'DNA' of every Indian, irrespective of the faith and religion he belongs to.

Indians across the country, celebrate festivals like Deepawali (Hindus'), Christmas (Christians'), Ramzan (Muslims'), Nauruz (Parsis'), Mahavir Jayanti (Jains'). At the ground level, people of different faiths have lived in harmony with each other. This has been the culture of India over thousands of years.

When the so-called celebrities and writers decide to comment on 'intolerance' in the society, they do not realise that they are generalising on the basis of specifics. The repercussion is that the issue of 'intolerance' has been raised in the Parliament, setting aside some urgent and impending bills that needed to be tabled and decided for the benefit of the nation. Some intellectuals have even taken out a procession in Delhi against this issue, and submitted a petition to the President of India.

Role of Media

It is unfortunate that the Indian media's present trend is to focus more on their TRP ratings than national interest and professionalism. They therefore tend to sensationalise even a trivial law and order issue, exaggerating its implication. Even though every Indian enjoys freedom of expression, media and leaders should realise that freedom of speech is not 'absolute'. This freedom goes with 'responsibility and accountability'. The media and a section of the celebrities should realise the potential impact of their comments and actions, and therefore endeavour to exercise restraint and maturity in their behaviour. As role models and messengers, they should endeavour to diffuse rather than infuse tension in the society. The media should restrain from inciting emotions through provocative and subjective reporting of incidents in the country. If it must report, it should take care not to paint an emotional tone to the report. The people of national and international significance need to exercise restraint, caution and maturity, realising that what they say or do can impact an entire society and nation. Otherwise, they would be playing a dangerous game, either consciously or unconsciously, of inciting and dividing the people. They must be conscious that the nation is supreme and their fellow citizens of prime regard.

By K. Srinivasan, Editor in Chief & Susan Koshy, Editor, PreSense