Anna was criticized by many for saying 'only one slap?' I too had not taken it kindly though I had also questioned the unanimity of the politicians in condemning the slap when the same unanimity was missing in the case of ministers and MPs thrashing citizens in UP. What happens is when you get to hear only a small part of something, the broader meaning or substance is lost. That is what happened with Anna too because most of the media people reported only the 'operative part' of his statement that had news value or nuisance value for them. It got flashed in no time and since social networking system works at break-neck speed, it was all out in the open in no time and soon became a huge issue with some, especially those belonging to the political spectrum. Sharad Pawar's men found an easy outlet in public properties and they destroyed them with unconcealed glee. Ostensibly, Pawar asked his supporters not to take law into their hands. This was a necessary political posturing he had to do. Pawar has so much money power that he can easily buy support and supporters from the market where poaching is a legitimate political business. We keep seeing instances of poaching both in parliament and elsewhere.
Somehow, Anna felt there was a need to explain his position. And he did explain at length. I did have the privilege of going through his long explanation. It might look like a justification though. Generally speaking, I do not approve of justifications. Justifications show you have a disturbed conscience, you have a conscience-prick. There are always exceptions to rules. I would like to see this justification by Anna as an exception simply because it is an eye opener of sort. Even though some of the media people have reported that Anna has justified slapping of Pawar, I have seen it mentioned in his blog that he has disapproved of this act of slapping by Harvinder Singh. But he has also hastened to put a poser: what occasioned this slap? Why an ordinary citizen of the country was forced to take law into his own hands? This is a fundamental question that needs to be answered because in it we would find solutions to many of our present day polity problems. Clearly, it indicates there is failure of the system somewhere that failed to deliver justice to the common people of the country. He is within his rights to question why these politicians are not angry when for the past six decades or more people have been bearing the brunt of government sponsored violence wreaked on the ordinary people. And then he goes on to give threadbare account of corrupt practices indulged in by Pawar and his political henchmen. There are innumerable examples which appear irrefutable. He has justly questioned the silence of these people on the specific instances of corruption and on the specific instances of killing of the innocent people by various governments from time to time. He has questioned them on their impotent silence. Anna clearly has a point here and instead of asking him questions on his 'only one slap' remark, these people need to answer his questions.
I will request media people too to exercise some caution, for they do not seem to read and comprehend things properly and state something that is not quite the thing. When you pick some words from the middle of a sentence, those words would be yours and not those of the author because you have reported them out of context. A classic example can be found in the oft-repeated quote "ignorance is bliss". Is this what Thomas Gray had said? No, definitely not. Ignorance can never be bliss. Nor did he say this. He had said, and I quote, "where ignorance is bliss it's folly to be wise." Now just compare the meaning of the two. Taken separately both the statements are 180 degree out of phase and kills the very spirit of what the poet had said. Media must be more vigilant and must have the ability to read properly, comprehend the meaning and then come out with their observations or comments. Journalism would be nothing if it failed to fully grasp the meaning of words and sentences, both stated and unstated meaning of words and sentences. Those who still feel Anna has justified the slapping should read his write-up and focus on comprehending the meaning. Anna has a point and he has stated it clearly too.
Somehow, Anna felt there was a need to explain his position. And he did explain at length. I did have the privilege of going through his long explanation. It might look like a justification though. Generally speaking, I do not approve of justifications. Justifications show you have a disturbed conscience, you have a conscience-prick. There are always exceptions to rules. I would like to see this justification by Anna as an exception simply because it is an eye opener of sort. Even though some of the media people have reported that Anna has justified slapping of Pawar, I have seen it mentioned in his blog that he has disapproved of this act of slapping by Harvinder Singh. But he has also hastened to put a poser: what occasioned this slap? Why an ordinary citizen of the country was forced to take law into his own hands? This is a fundamental question that needs to be answered because in it we would find solutions to many of our present day polity problems. Clearly, it indicates there is failure of the system somewhere that failed to deliver justice to the common people of the country. He is within his rights to question why these politicians are not angry when for the past six decades or more people have been bearing the brunt of government sponsored violence wreaked on the ordinary people. And then he goes on to give threadbare account of corrupt practices indulged in by Pawar and his political henchmen. There are innumerable examples which appear irrefutable. He has justly questioned the silence of these people on the specific instances of corruption and on the specific instances of killing of the innocent people by various governments from time to time. He has questioned them on their impotent silence. Anna clearly has a point here and instead of asking him questions on his 'only one slap' remark, these people need to answer his questions.
I will request media people too to exercise some caution, for they do not seem to read and comprehend things properly and state something that is not quite the thing. When you pick some words from the middle of a sentence, those words would be yours and not those of the author because you have reported them out of context. A classic example can be found in the oft-repeated quote "ignorance is bliss". Is this what Thomas Gray had said? No, definitely not. Ignorance can never be bliss. Nor did he say this. He had said, and I quote, "where ignorance is bliss it's folly to be wise." Now just compare the meaning of the two. Taken separately both the statements are 180 degree out of phase and kills the very spirit of what the poet had said. Media must be more vigilant and must have the ability to read properly, comprehend the meaning and then come out with their observations or comments. Journalism would be nothing if it failed to fully grasp the meaning of words and sentences, both stated and unstated meaning of words and sentences. Those who still feel Anna has justified the slapping should read his write-up and focus on comprehending the meaning. Anna has a point and he has stated it clearly too.
No comments:
Post a Comment