NRIs: Above scrutiny by everyone, including the Media

It’s the season for getting hitched. The number of invitations I have received to weddings and engagements of friends in the last two months far exceeds what I have heard of in the last two years. Hardly surprising, one can say, considering winter is usually the preferred time for such activities in India. Neither is it surprising to see that many of these friends are NRI men marrying Indian women (arranged by parents, of course).


What is surprising is the extent to which everyone (including the society watchman) will go to keep the NRIs in good humor. The house is spruced up to a point that it resembles a poor cousin of the 2 bed room apartment in Houston (referred to as “big house”). The 12 year old scooter is hidden away and the equally old car is given for urgent servicing (“make sure it works for 2 weeks”, is what people like my father would usually tell the mechanic). The kitchen is cleaned and fridge stocked to the brim to ensure the poor child (ahem, the NRI himself) is fed well, even as you know that he/she has been eating better quality/ variety of food overseas.

Toiler paper makes its debut on the shopping list and so does bottled water and hand sanitizer. Mothers learn to understand the meaning of “cookie” so that they can thrust the Marie biscuit on cue and fathers will usually talk less. (Better than getting your ego shattered because you displayed ignorance). The watchman and maids get tipped by the NRI if they as much say hello.

(Image Courtesy: TimesContent.com)
If the NRI failed, it must be the fault of the place he lives in. After all how can an Indian be held guilty for wrongdoing? We are morally good people.

It is no surprise that the common man’s sentiments are reflected by the media as well. Mainstream media’s treatment of NRI issues is often one-sided, portraying them in sympathetic light, while conveniently masking flaws. In short, the NRI is above scrutiny in the media. My piece for the Hoot deliberates on this through three well known examples. The text is reproduced below.

Recently, around 45,000 illegal immigrants with Indian citizenship staying in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were asked to leave the country or regularize their visas within two months. World over, this would be considered the right thing to do. But not so by the Indian media that was quick to report the plight of such immigrants and the measures taken by the Ministry of Overseas Indian Affairs.

An article by FirstPost (and many other publications), originally sourced from the PTI, seems to make it clear that illegal immigrants enjoy bargaining rights. The letter written by Mr. Vayalar Ravi, Minister of Overseas Indian Affairs, to various authorities in the UAE is quoted, asking the authorities to pay for the air tickets of those immigrants who are unable to afford them. Why should such a request be made in the first place? Rich or poor, everyone is aware of their visa status and when it is due for renewal. In most cases, the over staying (for several months at that) seems to be deliberate, as the report mentions past cases of similar amnesty programmes that helped 3.4 Lakh illegal immigrants in 2007, another 3 Lakh in 2002 and around 2 Lakh in 1996. Clearly routine over staying followed by intervention by the Ministry of External / Overseas Indian Affairs seems to be the norm. No mainstream Indian media discussed this point.

The Gulf News highlighted this in a report mentioning a 62 year old Pakistani who had over stayed for 10 months because he claimed he was involved in a court case relating to a bank loan. Another report by the same publication indicated that people overstayed because they liked the country and felt it offered better prospects for them. It also underlined how people waited for such amnesty drives in order to not pay the large overstaying fees. While none of these stories have quoted Indians, the sentiments of our brethren cannot be very different.

Another instance of the media keeping mum is in the child abuse case in Norway involving a couple from Andhra Pradesh. The couple has been charged with ‘gross and repeated mistreatment and abuse’ of their seven year old son and sentenced to a jail term. Yet, India media chose to highlight the shock faced by the family’s relatives in Hyderabad upon hearing this news. NDTV specifically mentioned how both grandparents of the child fell ill, and one had to be hospitalized, upon hearing the news of the sentence. The report further tried to evoke sympathy be saying the couple’s second child, a two year old, was missing his mother very much. The report concluded by questioning the nature of care the children would get now with their parents away? But what do the relatives think of the abuse of the child? Are they not shocked at the treatment meted out to him? The report conveniently fails to discuss this.

The Economic Times towed a similar line by mentioning how the seven year old was suffering from a psychological condition that could get worse if he was away from the parents. It also mentioned how the child’s health had deteriorated due to poor eating habits in the absence of his parents. No where did the report ask the doctors quoted as to how the child could cope with the situation, considering reversing/ reducing the parents’ sentence term was likely to be a lengthy process? It is hard to believe that the future is so bleak for a child who has escaped mistreatment in the form of body burns and beating with hot, pointed metallic objects.

Quick on the heels of this, were a set of reports from various publications that mentioned the Andhra Pradesh State Human Rights Commission directing the State government to put out a petition to release the couple. No where does the report mention whether such a petition was justified and whether it would get any results. Talking to a lawyer might have helped give better insights to the legalities of the case and possible recourse. The Times of India was the only publication that put out a story about how counseling could help parents and children improve their relationship. It also highlighted the cultural differences in Indian and Norwegian parenting that could result in such incidents.

The third example of covering NRIs in sympathetic light is the Norway custody case over the Bhattacharya children. When the children were taken away by foster care, media reports said that it was because they were fed by hand (a common Indian practice, but supposedly uncommon for Norwegian authorities). Later it was reported that the mother of the children was suffering from some mental ailment and was dubbed unsuitable to care for the children. Next, it was reported that the couple in question were seeking divorce over a matter of domestic violence. Eventually the children were handed over to the paternal uncle with visitation rights by the mother. All through the reporting, the media seemed to sympathize with one or the other parties involved – the children, the mother or the uncle. It also reported potshots being taken by each side on the other to win the custody of the children. Should the media have at all covered this issue once the Norwegian courts had reached a settlement? I don’t think so because what is emerging now is just personal bad mouthing.

The nature of issues faced by Indian immigrants in other countries may be complex. But that should not deter journalists from pursuing all sides to a story, even if that means taking an unsympathetic tone towards immigrants. Immigrants usually are aware of their status in these countries and should take the efforts to be equally aware of local laws. Asking the Indian government to intervene, as has been the case in many of these issues, dilutes the diplomatic status we enjoy with these countries for greater economic relations and reports should point this out.

Examples of such reporting are far and few. One such instance is the work done by Times of India in covering the Savita Halappanavar death case. It not only highlighted the details of the complicated medical matter but also how termination of pregnancy was tough not only in Ireland but many other countries. It’s editorial also noted out how the issue was being played out as India vs Ireland and recommended against it.

The next time you meet an NRI, do everyone a favor and behave normally. I will, and hopefully without offending my friends.

Is the media playing safe with Justice Katju

The front page anchor of the Hindu was today plastered with one “news” – PCI Chief Justice Katju’s views on Sunny Leone being shown on Indian TV. A Google search showed me that almost every large media house had covered the “story” prominently.

This is surprising on two accounts. Firstly, the PCI has no jurisdiction over non-news broadcasts and hence his views (or those of PCI) on whether it was appropriate for Sunny Leone to appear on the reality show Bigg Boss 5, are irrelevant. Secondly, these are likely to be Mr. Katju’s personal views and perhaps do not merit front page coverage.  At best, these could have been placed in the entertainment section.

Why is the media playing it safe with Justice Katju?

Since his appointment in October last year, his views on topics outside the ambit of the PCI’s jurisdiction have been covered. These include views on democracy, the abuse of Bharat Ratna awards, filtering content on social media sites, self regulation, discrimination against muslims and the lack of scientific methods of investigation by the police and of course the numerous references he has made for TV and online news channels to be brought under the ambit of the PCI.

I do not recollect any other PCI Chief (or the PCI) being given such coverage even while discussing relevant issues that were within the PCI’s jurisdiction. Not even when the Council censured three newspapers in July 2006 (The Times of India – Delhi and Pune editions, Punjab Kesari – Delhi and Mid Day – Mumbai). In fact there is little media coverage found on any of the past Chairmen of the PCI, even though they presided on several landmark cases such as the BG Verghese Vs The Hindustan Times case. Given the emails Mr. Katju has been sending the media, several a week, he seems to have a greater penchant for publicity than past chairmen of the press council.

Many blogs have pointed out that Mr. Katju’s aspirations for “power” to the PCI are against the fundamental principles of the PCI and that he should perhaps directly ask for re-constituting the PCI. Mainstream media, however, has never asked him such a question. (Maybe this is the very same low quality of intellect among journalists in mainstream media that Mr. Katju complained of, which is not motivated to think on these lines of questioning. Perhaps Mr. Katju is relying on the same low intellect to keep him in the news?)

The PCI is an autonomous body that seeks government aid on a need-basis and Mr. Katju as its representative should be treated with the same amount of scrutiny as any government representative/ industry body representative. Instead, his views have been reproduced in the media verbatim with little or no alternative perspective featured in those stories.  Most stories featuring him are lead stories, the bulk of them carrying his interview or a report that conveniently omits any other perspective.

To draw a comparison, when Anna Hazare surfaced with the Lokpal Bill, the media chose to investigate his background and the backgrounds of his associates who made up Team Anna.  This led to discovering the infamous Income tax woes of Arvind Kejriwal and travel funds misappropriation issue in the case of Kiran Bedi.  However, we know little about Mr. Katju except the fact that he was a distinguished lawyer who served as Supreme Court Judge and his courtroom was known for dispensing off 100+ cases a week, a feat considering the delays at most courts. Thanks to his regular emails to the press, we now know that he is an authority on everything under the sun. What’s more, he will definitely say something that almost always deserves front page coverage.

Perhaps it is his legal background that is making journalists reluctant to probe deeper and understand why he wants the changes he voices in the PCI. I am also surprised that no political links have been discovered given the tacit support his views are receiving from the government and the opposition parties.

It is also strange that Mr. Katju’s seems reluctant to seek a formal meeting with the various journalist bodies including the Editor’s Guild, News Broadcaster’s Association  and the Broadcast Editor’s Association to put forth his views on improving the state of the media and discussing the larger objectives that he wants to drive under the PCI’s ambit. (The meeting he held with editors upon his Chairmanship in October 2011, was an informal one where he was presenting a lecture on the state of the media). If such a meeting has happened, it would have been covered either in a press release by Mr. Katju himself or through statements issued by the journalist bodies. Considering either of this has not happened, it would be safe to presume that Mr. Katju is still hunting for adequate verbal ammunition to hurl at journalists.

In a democracy, every Bill is tabled in the parliament before it receives the majority votes to be enacted. Mr Katju appears to have found a new loophole in the constitution that aims to enforce legislation without even seeking basic dialogue from those who will be governed by it.

It appears that the media is perhaps fearful of the fact that if the PCI’s demands for greater power, punitive action and jurisdiction were to be granted, they could be targeted. Either that or the media has not yet found a strong and sustainable voice to counter Mr. Katju’s views and offer a balanced perspective. If that were the case, it is time the media seek alternate voices from the blogsphere and publish them.  At least they will conform to Mr. Katju’s views on providing balanced news. 


(Reproduced from my article to the Hoot - http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=5690&mod=1&pg=1&sectionId=1&valid=true

FDI in retail: Reportage and the Bill seem to be heading no where

Since the issue on allowing 51% FDI in retail was announced early this month, there has been a bipolar view of the issue with the media making no efforts to explore alternatives. In a bid to remain unbiased, the media seems to be reporting on the FDI issue without realising how the reportage is adding little value to the readers/ viewers.

My piece in The Hoot highlights this. It is reproduced below.

The Indian media seems to have made it a habit to promote cacophony and frenzy in emerging political situations with little attempt to independently analyse the scenario. The FDI in retail issue is no different. While one heard positive things about it last week, this week has begun on a negative note with parties doing an about turn and retail entities voicing “concerns” over the initiative. Amidst this yo-yo-ing, does the common man have scope to discover the real dangers (and potential benefits) of this executive decision? Not if the manner of reporting on this issue continues.

There are three fundamental gaps in the media’s coverage of the issue. For starters, there is no independent analysis of the various opinions shared by politicians, industry bodies and private parties. Almost every story is carefully crafted to include an opinion followed by three key reasons substantiating that opinion. The journalist fraternity seems to have been so busy collecting and appending these opinions that they did not have the time to question some of these points to elicit a reaction. If they did, those portions seem to have been too insignificant to include in the report. As a result most stories now read like school essays containing a “Pros” and “Cons” section followed by a conclusion which is so generic that it could have been avoided. Some of the smarter reports have stopped with just propagating one opinion.

Is FDI in retail a new topic? No. Is there dearth of international material on what have been the consequences of such a move in other countries? No. A google search on ‘FDI in retail China’ showed that there has been positive impact of opening up retail in China. There are several other documents such as this presentation that indicates how FDI in retail in India can be introduced in phases and how it will benefits all stakeholders. When there is such a wealth of information available, why are journalists sticking to cliché’s and not exploring possibilities?

Is FDI in retail a black and white issue? Do we have only two options – to accept it or reject it? Is there no third perspective that can suggest if this decision can be modified to suit the interests of all stakeholders? While political parties may foist their straight-jacketed views upon journalists, do journalists not get curious and seek a third alternative?

This is the second gap in reportage – The absence of a third view that seeks to consider all interests. If the government or any other entity has such a view, it has not been sought by the media. In a democracy there are multiple solutions to every issue as was evident by the Supreme Court’s decision on the Ayodhya case, which left just about everyone stumped. I am sure finding alternate solutions to FDI in retail (considering that this is hitherto untainted by religious color) would be simpler. Talking to some retailers on how they want to tackle these fears of monopoly could have generated good ideas. Some suggestions on how the decision can be amended can include – retailers tying up with Indian/ foreign infrastructure players to build the back end supply chain infrastructure; setting development benchmarks for the regions from where procurement happens (this will ensure that farmers are not cheated out of their produce); limiting retail outlets to those parts of cities and towns with relatively less development (so as to grow that region); retailers to hire and train locals; and incentives for retailers supporting green practices.

The third gap noticed in coverage was the absence of a Vox-Populi (people’s voice). Reports have hardly sought people’s opinions to develop an independent perspective on the issue. While I read about Anju from Jammu and how she is comfortable with the existing retail system, I did not read about how the current stand will impact (if at all) her retail experience. Her opinion on the issue is cursorily sought and tied to a common sentiment - “if something is working, why tear it apart?” What about talking to the urban Indian who has experienced malls and hypermarkets? Or those who have shopped abroad at Wal-Mart? That will perhaps bring out three perspectives – The urban Indians want FDI; those in towns perhaps don’t care; and villagers fear job and loss of income if FDI is passed. Each of these perspectives can be explored to holistically build the pros and cons of FDI in retail and suggest possible amendments to the current executive decision.

A classic example of sensitizing people to the woes (and benefits) of a situation is by following P. Sainath’s work on farmer suicides. Similar stories across the retail supply chain can sensitise people to the pros and cons of the FDI in retail.

India is known as a country of shopkeepers. An issue impacting their livelihoods needs more definitive coverage.

The Insider Reports: For Anna or against him? Do I have a choice?

Should the media always take a stand on every issue? At the end of my first journalism class one message was drilled into my head - "Journalists report. They do not give opinion." While I have considered this sacrosanct and tried to support views with facts for every story I have written, most of the media fraternity today seems to think it is their birth right to voice their views.

Media reporting of the Anna Hazare campaign is testimony to that. My piece in the Hoot attempts to highlight this new trend. The piece can be read at http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=5458&mod=1&pg=1&sectionId=1&valid=true.

Those who are unable to read it, please find the complete version below:

The Indian English media (mainly TV), perhaps influenced by the American media, seems to want to take sides on every issue worthy of public consumption. Covering the Anna Hazare campaign has been no different. Every prominent English news channel has resorted to taking sides on the issue to such an extent that journalists are falling short of putting words in the mouths of the guests they interview. The frenzy on news shows could rival the emotions on display at the Ram Lila grounds.

A glance at the reportage of the last 10 days indicates that most news organisations felt compelled to take a stand on the issue, perhaps without adequate thought over whether this was sustainable.

CNN IBN's Karan Thapar in his last interview with Digvijaya Singh on the JanLokPal Bill in April, conducted a fact based interview that was surprisingly devoid of any frenzy. Perhaps Mr. Thapar for once did not want to take sides? Or was he going gentle on Singh because he, like Singh, believed that the Anti-Corruption movement would not reach the proportions as it has today?

Then Thapar hosted a show on Aug 19^th to analyze the media reporting of the Anna Hazare Campaign. Perhaps taking a cue from the discussion there, which indicated that the media had made Anna Hazare an icon without attempting to delve deeper into the issue that he was standing for, Thapar launched an Anti-Anna tirade in his show Devil's Advocate on August 21st. He attacked (which is now considered his style) Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan with questions whose answers were available in the Indian constitution and in the beginnings of the Anna Hazare movement in December last year.

 To make up for the lack of thought-provoking questions, Thapar kept interrupting Kejriwal and Bhushan while they tried to respond to him. From taking a neutral (almost disinterested stand) in April to going anti-Anna now, I am not sure if taking sides was necessary.

NDTV's Barkha Dutt on her program We The People on Aug 21^st attempted to re-establish that the Anna Hazare campaign was a largely middle class driven movement. How this piece of information would help or disrupt the protests is unknown. However, instead of spending one hour debating on the issue, taking a look at the way the campaign has progressed would have yielded results. The movement encompasses the middle class and grass root society (those taking to protests on road, fasting and galvanizing others) as well as the upper middle class and elite (showing support via social media such as Twitter, Blogs and Face Book). Strangely, in April this year Dutt aired a two hour special show where through a Vox Populi she established that the LokPal Bill would change the lives of middle class Indians.

Had the Jan LokPal Bill progressed beyond the stage of protests, say for enactment or dismissal, Dutt's stand on Aug 21^st, in retrospect, would have been fruitful in determining how public sentiment (or social strata specific behavior and attitudes) can mobilise a cause. That in turn, could provide some insights into consumer behavior for entities (media houses, government, corporates etc) to improve their relationship with the consumers. An example of this is the Enron scam in the United States that was extensively reported and garnered public sentiment for 'zero tolerance to fraud'. Post Enron, the US has seen good models of corporate governance emerge and increased conviction of cases involving white collar crime.

Times NOW took a clear pro-Anna stand with Arnab Goswami not taking kindly to any comments against the Anna Hazare campaign. His discussion with Abhishek Manu Singhvi basely accused the government of procrastination. Further on a debate titled 'Pro and Anti-Anna", when all panelists on the show agreed that perhaps galvanized by raw emotion people were failing to focus on the larger implication of what the Bill would achieve, Goswami accused them of being unable to empathise with middle class sentiments and hence the Anna Hazare campaign as since they were not from that strata of society. A news channel taking such an objection to individual (or perhaps collective) opinion is in bad taste.

Leading English language newspapers too have taken sides in the Anna Hazare campaign, albeit in a more dignified manner (perhaps the lack of a camera and a collar mike does make a difference).

On Anna's arrests, the New Indian Express said that democracy was defiled and covertly indicated that the government would have to pass the Jan LokPal Bill, in order to reverse the damage of reputation.

The Times of India was more restrained while the Hindu indicated that the UPA government was on its way out. The Statesman likened Anna Hazare's arrest to the government's cowardice and pronounced the Government's version of the LokPal Bill to be ineffective and one that would not deliver the results sought by the people.

Subsequent editorials have focused on the need for the government to get its act together and focus on dialogue with Team Anna.

What has this tangled mass of reportage resulted in? A friend recently told me his driver was wearing a 'support Anna' T-shirt. On being asked what he felt about the Jan LokPal Bill, the man answered, "That I don't know. But I know Anna is against corruption and so am I".

While the media reportage has largely focused on the Anna-Government stand-off and the manner of protests, it has not shown as much enthusiasm to peruse the nitty-gritty of the Bill itself. Aside from the points of discontent (such as the inclusion of the Prime Minister and the Judiciary), there has been little else highlighted.

Is this is the only Bill of its kind? What will be the real implications of this Bill from a law and order point of view? Would the scope of this Bill include NGOs, corporate and other entities? Will the enactment of this Bill negate the reasons for us to look at other existing legislation such as the Prevention of Corruption Act or the Prevention of Money Laundering Act? Aside from the Anna version and the Government version, could there be a third, more amenable and still as effective version of the Bill that can be enacted? Will India have the manpower to deal with cases brought to notice through such a Bill? What additional resources would we need to fulfill any gaps?

Such questions have largely gone un-debated. Perhaps a look at similar Ombudsmen provisions across the globe and their effectiveness would have helped develop a more holistic perspective. After all, many developed nations such as the Scandinavian countries, Australia, Singapore and Hong Kong have an Ombudsman with varying degrees of power. The effectiveness of such Ombudsmen is also well documented through annual reports at the respective websites.

The role of the media in a democratic nation is to make people more cognizant of issues, focus on facts and provide a variety of perspectives, irrespective of whether or not they agree with those perspectives. By focusing on only the means adopted for the protest, many senior commentators  such as Arundhati Roy seem to indicate that they have no opinion (and perhaps little knowledge) whatsoever on the contents of the Bill, leaving it for the likes of lawyers to comment upon.

It is the responsibility of news editors to pick and publish (or air) perspectives that are holistic and balanced. For every article that criticizes the way the protests are being conducted, there could be another that lauds that same. If someone supports one of the provisions of the bill, a report objecting to the same should also be voiced so that users are left to shape their opinions while being aware of both sides to an issue.

The Insider Reports: World Classical Tamil Conference – banal reporting

Growing up in Tamil Nadu and being a Tamilian, I have surprisingly never quite understood the insane ferocity with which anything Tamil was constantly defended and everything else was instantly branded "Anti-Tamil".

I have believed that a language or culture is kept alive by making it current and easily accessible to the masses. Tamil to me seems outdated and may soon become the exclusive domain of the few who only attempt to complicate it further ("keeping it pure", they would say) – strangely like Sanskrit, who the Tamils supposedly detest.

Therefore when the recently concluded World Classical Tamil Conference, costing the State at least Rs 400 crore, ended up as an exercise in nostalgia and possibly no real purpose, I could not sit still.

The result was an article that gave vent to my frustration over the media lapping up the Tamil propaganda and not raising any relevant questions. The Hoot, published this piece on July 3^rd and I am sharing the link and details below. Request your comments.

http://www.thehoot.org/web/home/story.php?storyid=4667&mod=1&pg=1&sectionId=2&valid=true

Making light work of a literature meet

English media covering the World Classical Tamil Conference did not highlight the fact that the meet was an exercise in nostalgia which failed to give a direction for the future development of the language. ARCHANA VENKAT says the coverage could have been more incisive.

Posted Saturday, Jul 03 18:05:53, 2010

The recently concluded World Classical Tamil Conference (WCTC) was an exercise in nostalgia with no clear direction on the future of the language. Unfortunately, the English media* covering the event seems to have missed highlighting this vital aspect, choosing to focus on incidents of petty one-upmanship and propaganda.

Five days and close to Rs 400 crore (including the Rs 100 crore announced for a Tamil Development Fund) were dedicated to an initiative that failed to indicate how this language can empower the present and future generations. Most of the themes discussed (http://www.ulakathamizhchemmozhi.org/en/content/theme-conference ) were efforts to trace the growth and accomplishments of Tamil from its origin to the present ??" something that has also been a feature of the eight international Tamil Conferences held between 1966 and 1995.

Only the World Tamil Internet Conference 2010, which happened alongside the much bigger WCTC, brought to light relevant aspects such as e-governance and computing in Tamil to aid in the growth and development of the State. Predictably the internet conference, owing to its lack of political content, did not see as much media attention.

The "recommendations" made at the end of WCTC were reported by the media without any attempt to evaluate and analyse their merits. Sample these:

1. Tamil be made the official language at the Centre. This is not the first time such a demand has been made. However, no news report mentioned that the issue had been quashed citing Articles 343 (1), 342 (2) and 343 (3) of the Constitution. This fact, if posed to the political bigwigs during the conference, was not reported. The Times of India in its editorial on June 29 makes a passing reference to this, perhaps after seeing that the rest of its reportage had ignored this point.

2. Tamil as official language in Courts. This demand was rejected by the Supreme Court in 2006. The Law Ministry said it would not object if the State wanted to conduct proceedings at the Madras High Court in Tamil. Consequently this year one case was argued in Tamil. Did the media question if this would improve the functioning of the judiciary and if cases would be dealt with faster? Rather than analyzing the issue the media has restricted itself to reporting on the protests outside courts. The latest writing on this topic was by The Deccan Chronicle on June 22. Unfortunately despite the heavy presence of State and Central political leaders at the WCTC, no journalist seems to have thought it prudent to raise this issue.

3. Funds for research on "mythical" Kumari Continent and Poompuhar. No details were sought on the rationale behind the project, what it would entail and how it would benefit the common man.

4. Funds for Tamil books in science, economics and geology. Reporters could easily have questioned how such a step would help future generations when higher academic research as well as jobs requiring the study of these subjects would be English based. This issue should have been raised particularly in the light of the media's criticism of the recently started Civil and Mechanical Engineering courses (around 1,800 seats) in Tamil. These are exclusively for students from Tamil medium schools and the media has said that the state was experimenting with these students, few of whom would find jobs unless they picked up English language skills. The New Indian Express, in an uncharacteristically banal report, aired populist sentiments at the venue. It is ironic that the scientists quoted in the story, despite hailing from Tamil medium schools, opted for jobs in the Central government and not within the State. The genial Dr. Sivathanu Pillai, the distinguished scientist who is the chief controller at the DRDO, would surely have responded if he had been quizzed on this.

5. Law to be enacted to give preference to Tamil-medium students for Government jobs. Only The Deccan Chronicle commented that such a legislation would violate Article 16(1) of the Constitution ??" right to equal opportunity. Given the quota restrictions, what realistic opportunity would Tamil medium students have in government jobs? Also, would this law apply to currently serving and future politicians of the State including the convent educated former Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and Dayanidhi Maran among others? Such questions, if asked, were not reported.

The English media published close to 70 news reports on the WCTC and the World Tamil Internet Congress 2010. Barely a seventh of these were focused on the role of Tamil in fostering growth and development in the State. Only The Times of India and The New Indian Express have published editorials on the WCTC

To achieve the developmental goals of education for all, poverty & hunger eradication, infrastructure improvement and gender/ caste/ class equality, it is important to empower people through job creation and equal opportunity. How does the State propose to use Tamil to achieve these goals? Does it plan to have personality development courses to help Tamil medium candidates become confident in facing job interviews? Is there a plan to create jobs that will mainly require Tamil language fluency with little or no emphasis on English? How will such a move work when over 45 per cent of the State's revenue comes from services in the private sector that perform software jobs requiring fluency in English and about 34 per cent comes from manufacturing (mainly exports and inter-state trade) where English is the preferred medium of communication? What steps are being taken to improve computer literacy among Tamil medium literates?

How does the state plan to promote Tamil given the apparent lack of interest in the younger generation? Children's literature from Arunachal Pradesh is being translated into English and adapted for current times. Katha, a children's book publisher that undertakes such work told me it is seeing an increased interest for such books, with children from the North East Indian community expressing interest in learning their native script through bilingual books. Chandamama, among the oldest of children's magazines, allows children to read and re-write their versions of popular native fiction in a language of their choice. Video and mobile game versions of literature are other ways to inspire youngsters to take interest in their native tongues.

These are some pivotal questions and ideas that the media should be raising on such occasions. The amount of scepticism they reserve for private enterprise should be present in covering public enterprises and governance too.

Such conferences should be platforms for launching new ideas, services, products and functional literature that make Tamil more current, relevant and effective in day to day life.

* Comments in this article are restricted to coverage in the English Media

Office-Office: Hypocrisy

(Picture source: www.dilbert.com)

The first few months spent as a new corporate employee are very insightful.

You realize how full of B.S. the induction program was – except for the info on the cafeteria and loo breaks. (Hail companies that don’t have an induction program! You hit the shit immediately). You see your real position (or the lack of it) in the organization, when you compare yourself to the boss. The best way to illustrate this is through the experiences of the mustachioed young man (M) and the ageing super star (ASS). Of course, we will throw in our favorite character Super Boss too, wherever appropriate.

1. ASS comes to work at 8:00 am (official work hours being 9:30 am) and leaves at 3:00 pm citing “client meeting” reasons. M comes at 9:00 am and is not expected to leave.

2. ASS can delegate work to M, the vice versa will be short of harakiri.

3. ASS drinks tea brought in by a butler, curses its “inferior” quality but empties the cup. M has to shove his way to the café. See several pairs of similarly tired eyes stare momentarily at him, grab the mild coffee and stand listlessly under the fan, only to realize the coffee is long over. Talk about taking a break!

4. ASS gives M files to review. M reviews them and makes recommendations. ASS shares recommendations without credit to M. When Super Boss shoots down a few recommendations, ASS remains silent. Post call, gives M a tongue lashing calling him a “useless joker” among other things and quietly asks for an explanation to the recommendations that got shot down. At the next meeting with the Board of Directors, Super Boss makes the same recommendations he shot down. ASS’ mouth is gaping like that of a gold fish. This is what you call reeking in hypocrisy.

5. M is asked to handle a client interaction. ASS pokes his nose into it and goofs up. Predictably ASS denies any involvement during a damage control Q&A session. M is severely reprimanded. A fortnight later ASS handles initiative and again goofs up. Media gleefully runs rampage adding spice to the story. No questions asked at office.

6. M and ASS go for an event together. ASS ends up entertaining some guests with tea and snacks. He leaves brusquely asking M if he can pay the bill. M, taken aback, does so, forgetting to collect the bill copy. Net result – M is poorer by Rs 1,250 as re-imbursements can be claimed only by “Senior level people”.

7. M is overworked and has started admitting that to himself and a few colleagues. ASS thrusts more work on him saying “he can do it!” (did I tell you ASS is a Nike Fan?). M tries to live up to the challenge, but fails. Fighting rage, ASS tells him “I will do it!” and asks him to leave the cabin. 30 minutes later ASS is frantically calling M asking him to how to change slides. Everyone knows who did it.

As for the mother of all hypocrisies, consider this – The HR chaps disappear after the induction program only to reappear when one has handed in one’s resignation. What’s worse, they hand one an exit interview questionnaire to complete with a section on “Rate your relations with the HR manager.”