|
With its breathless coverage of the American elections, the Indian media has demonstrated once again that it simply cannot shake off its colonised worldview, says Sharmila Joshi
Not for the first time, the English language media in India has been saturated with news emanating from the western world, at the cost of coverage of equally critical events in the rest of the world: saturated this time with the election of Barack Obama as president of America. The coverage has breathlessly talked about an election victory that will change not just the US, but the rest of the world. The media has also overflowed with tedious comparisons between this example of an apparently flawless and mature democratic system at work in the US with India’s sadly -- in these comparisons -- lacking democracy, incapable of producing such exceptional leaders as Obama. The symbolic value of the victory of an until recently relatively unknown African American, in a country where race continues to be a deep faultline of inequality, is, of course, significant. It is, as other, more considered commentators, both in India and the US, have written, also more than just a symbolic moment. Veteran historian Howard Zinn, for example, has said that even though Obama does not represent any fundamental change, he creates an opening for a possibility of change; others have pointed out that even if there are tiny policy differences between Obama and McCain (and the conservatives of the unspeakably reactionary Bush administration), those differences are important. Already, however, some are also saying that the change (in policy and practice) ended with Obama’s election. How the potential differences, the sliver of possibility for change, can be negotiated and expanded by people in the US, by India and by other countries, should correctly be the focus of discussion in our media. After all, the American presidential election corners so much column and screen space presumably because of America’s global dominance, and surely not because the conventional South Asian media pathetically continue to look at the western world as the aspirational standard of progress? If that were not the case, equally significant elections, significant for different reasons though—for example, controversial elections in Zimbabwe earlier this year or Hugo Chavez’s repeated re-election in Venezuela—should also be consistent and big news in India. Electoral and related developments in other formerly colonised countries, or other economically poor countries struggling with the global impact of neo-liberal policy reforms, should be of as much interest to the Indian media as the elections in the mighty America. When the US’s globally still-dominant position justifies the extensive coverage, this coverage logically should be more critical and analytical of what the change of president may mean to countries affected for decades by America’s foreign policies. It should more rigorously inform readers/viewers of what this change from far-right Republican to marginally (if at all) left of centre Democrat means for the international inter-state system, or if it is going to be business as usual. Bypassing such analyses, a focal point in parts of the English language media has been comparisons of the American and Indian electoral systems, in which India invariably shows up in a poor light. Not only do such comparisons (one columnist referred to the US, yet again, as “the world’s greatest democracy”, and to India as only “the world’s largest democracy”) ignore historical specificity, vastly different demographics and economies, they also mask the shortcomings of the American electoral system: its infamous voter apathy, the fracas over Al Gore’s possible win in 2000, the funding and billions of dollars spent in campaigns, the ugly, personalised campaigns. The comparisons also ignore the multiple complexities of Indian elections, the active engagement of the electorate (other than the sedentary middles classes) with issues, the telling verdicts. The victory of a candidate from a historically disadvantaged and discriminated against community (African American) also seems to make the comparison with India compelling to our media: for example, a television talk show titled ‘An Indian Obama’, despairingly discussed when India might have an equivalent national winner from a marginalised community. Disadvantage generally occurs along the axes of class, race/caste/religion/ethnicity, and gender. India had a woman prime minister decades ago (and let’s not even talk about Babasaheb Ambedkar and others). The merits of the politician (Indira Gandhi) are not being discussed here, just the fact of an individual from a socially unequal group rising to national leadership. How come then, when Hillary Clinton (also partially banking on family name as Gandhi did) looked like she could be the Democratic presidential candidate, did our TV channels not have a show titled ‘An American Indira Gandhi’? If that sounds odd, it may be instructive to consider why. It should not be our task to defend or compare the Indian democratic system in this manner; such defensiveness speaks of an uncertainty, a perpetual need to prove that “we” are, or can be, as good as “them”. The dominant Indian middle class is, by and large, indoctrinated into thinking about “development” in terms of the West; the white western world is its constant template of “progress” on all fronts. So the same media that extols the imminent arrival (financial meltdowns notwithstanding) of India as an economic “superpower” (as if the existing “superpowers” are worthy of joining ranks with), simply cannot shake off its colonised worldview. So now much of the mainstream print media is applying the Obama catchphrase, “Yes, we can” to everything. Even to a forthcoming ‘Mumbai Festival 2009’. A recent newspaper report about this event states: “Drawn in by Barack Obama’s ‘Yes, we can’ campaign, the Mumbai festival sees its new focus as being a catalyst for change”! It may be time to say, “No, we cannot’—simply cannot, digest such media coverage. InfoChange News & Features, November 2008
|
