|
By Freny Manecksha The class with its cell phones and laptops has assumed the garb of the New Age crusader. The media is celebrating this middle class activism. But there are major exclusions based on class and caste in this court of public opinion
After the television channel NDTV successfully campaigned to re-open the Jessica Lal case with a massive SMS drive, an excited blogger declared: “From choosing the voice of the nation to initiating a movement meant to re-open a murder case, SMSs these days are playing a major role in voicing the opinion of the nation.” (Katrin’s blog) Besides SMSs, blogging too has become a new form of protest. Anyone with a keyboard and Internet can now join the “court of public opinion”, shooting off petitions ranging from the reservation row, whether umpire Hair is a racist, whether or not a character in a TV soap should be killed off! Earlier this year, smartly dressed doctors and students took to the streets protesting against a government move to hike reservations for other backward classes (OBCs). One young girl found herself an instant celebrity because her picture was in the papers. Traders and grocers downed shutters in sympathy, and corporate India voiced its support. Activism even rode the wave of popular cinema, with Rang De Basanti being hailed as the voice of modern-day Bhagat Singhs. So, has the class with the smart lifestyle and purchasing power assumed the garb of the New Age crusader? Has this new activism come of age? Dr Anjali Monteiro, professor, Centre for Media and Cultural Studies, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, points out that middle class activism and vigilanteeism are not exactly new. In the past, middle class communities have mobilised on issues of housing and the environment. Advanced local management committees fight for civic amenities, and citizens’ groups for various causes. But this activism has become much more visible now, says Monteiro, because the media itself has become an important player in a variety of ways -- through opinion polls, advocacy and the sheer extent of coverage they give to such campaigns. What is interesting though, she adds, is to look at the construction of ‘citizen’ and ‘human’ in the discourse on activism. “There are major exclusions based on class and caste. Thus, human rights do not include the rights of hawkers, slum- and pavement-dwellers (they are “eyesores” to be removed), or even dalits, as was evident in the vociferous anti-reservation campaign. Moreover, television channels tend to frame issues in simplistic terms, asking for a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ that sometimes misses the complexity and nuances of the situation,” she says. This is a viewpoint that Sonya Gill, president, Mumbai, of the All India Democratic Women’s Association, expands upon. While any kind of engagement with the public on social issues is welcome, she says, it is important to keep in mind the touchstone for such protests and the issues concerned. The anti-reservation protest fuelled by very narrow self-interest cannot, therefore, be viewed as positive. “In the Jessica Lal and Priyadarshini Mattoo cases, the victim was seen as one of our own, with an affluent and powerful section getting away with the crime. So the attempt to bring about change in the criminal justice system and to apply pressure tactics is very positive.” But, she cautions, such campaigns have a very narrow appeal of engagement. Unless one looks at the wider system of the police, the judicial system, and so on, one will never understand the roots of crime. Also, this kind of campaigning has to be extended to the very poor section that never gets access to justice. Gill points out how the mobilisation of the middle class through technology reaches out only to a minuscule section of society. She warns against a certain kind of complacency. “We think it is big because the media gives it a larger-than-life presence. But much more fundamental forms of protest are being totally ignored by the media. The dangers of such media-generated forms of response are that one begins to think that only one’s own voice is of concern. But there are far larger concerns in the context of the country and the world that are not being voiced.” Protests that question and demand shifts in government policy concerning much larger numbers of people are being blanked out. Gill gives the example of token coverage of the Women’s Reservation Bill. In the first week of August, nine women’s groups staged a unique dharna outside Parliament. There were elected representatives from gram panchayats and corporations (under the 33% reservation rule), and women from all walks of life were there. But there was no one to record their soundbytes on what was a very crucial issue. Bishakha Datta, documentary filmmaker and director of Point of View (a civil society organisation) welcomes any activism aimed at social justice, but points out that the politics of middle class activism and movement-based activism are very different. She elaborates on the point made by Gill that in the Jessica Lal and Priyadarshini Mattoo cases, the politics of activism were based on the victims being from the same class. It was not part of a broader struggle and so could not go beyond that. While even a limited movement is better than no movement, she points out that there has been no such movement for justice for the women who were raped or brutally murdered in the Gujarat riots. Datta sees the popularity of the Rang De Basanti kind of cinema as symptomatic of “class-biased activism”, in which one remains immune to injustice until one’s own interests are affected. “When one of your kind gets killed, you decide to break all the rules and spray everyone with a gun!” She is also critical of the media’s role as a manipulative player, by its use of opinion polls and SMSs. “It is a smart way to generate revenue for cell phone company service-providers by conning consumers into thinking that they are participating in democracy in such a shallow manner. The questions are extremely glib and inane. The basis on which they are then said to represent sections of the people is misleading. It is illusionary and a cynical view of effecting social change.” Documentary filmmaker Rakesh Sharma is also cautious of media activism and middle class participation. “Mere participation and vocal support does not mean that the issue is being discussed properly or given the right perspective. Civil society’s participation is a double-edged sword. While it is welcome in the Lal and Mattoo cases, in which the agenda is criminal justice, it is utterly regressive in the Youth for Equality movement that has sprung up against reservations.” Sharma also points out how the media, as a major player, selectively blocks out other points of view. “Just the high pitch of excitement in the reporters’ voices when they were covering the doctors’ and students’ protests showed there was no neutrality. It is the mainstream media that shapes people’s opinions, but they did not bother to show how the doctors’ action in staying away from their duties resulted in patients’ deaths. There was no civil society outrage over this.” He notes how the entire media debate on merit with regard to reservations did not touch upon the unfair means whereby one can “buy” seats in medical and engineering colleges, through capitation fees. “So, reservation for the rich is okay. When such students secure less marks but can get into colleges there is no rampage or outrage that they are deficient in knowledge.” The very language of protest by Youth for Equality was regressive and betrayed their background and biases. “By sweeping the streets or putting up shoe racks in protest, these people were saying that their profession was more exalted than others. They believe dalits must not be empowered.” Interestingly, Sharma himself has demonstrated very successfully how to use the language of protest when his film on the Gujarat riots (The Final Solution) ran into problems with the censors. Petitions were used as pressure points and he used novel campaigns like ‘Pirate and Circulate’, whereby anyone who promised to hold a screening of the film would get one copy free. On October 2, 2004, around 220 screenings were held in various homes, with some 50 people at each screening. “In effect, it meant I had 220 distributors. The event became much more than a mere film screening because issues of communication and censorship were discussed. It was completely interactive and one was making sure that the film would never get quietly buried.” For lawyer-activist Susan Abraham, middle class activism is actually a disturbing phenomenon. “Public interest litigation is, in fact, heavily weighed against the public. When citizens’ groups like Action for Good Governance and Networking (AGNI) claim that slums are eyesores and must be demolished, they are asking for thousands of people to be displaced. Unfortunately, only their voices are being given weight in court.” She wonders why the Bombay Environmental Action Group (BEAG) ran a campaign to remove slum-dwellers from the Borivli National Park because they wanted to preserve green spaces, but remained silent about the high-rises surrounding the park and the Royal Palm golf course. Citing the example of the Olga Tellis case, Abraham observes that in the past, public interest litigation took in the lower end of the social spectrum. The concept of justice was continually being expanded to include the right to livelihood and life. This is no longer the case. Even avenues of protest for the working classes are being throttled, she says. Earlier, demonstrators could march up to Hutatma Chowk, in the heart of Mumbai city, where they were a visible force. Then it was restricted to Azad Maidan. “The other day, even those sitting in dharna there because their homes were demolished were thrown out. In the name of public interest litigation, the rights of the masses are being infringed because they have no means to defend themselves.” (Freny Manecksha is an independent journalist based in Mumbai) InfoChange News & Features, September 2006
|
