It is natural that when Sonia Gandhi issues a statement, that will receive wide publicity. It is also expected that there will be a concerted move to demean her statements with a vociferous, ruthless attack that has no bearing on the statement she makes. It is also not surprising that the opposition to any ideas that she presents will be tinged with deep animosity, unfounded allegations and unsubstantiated drivel passing as facts. Many people who are not aligned ideologically or by intellectual subservience to the present ruling dispensation also try to ignore or trash her statements due to their own prejudices about her.
But one thing is certain. The lady talks a lot of sense, whenever she decides to. And I beg her pardon in saying that maybe more sense than her late husband or her dutiful son. And as the head of the supposedly main opposition party of India, it is necessary to hear her without letting personal misgivings about her origins, intentions, affiliations and all theories or stories that we hear about her.
One of her suggestions that she has recently made is one such example of prudent and logical thinking which is being trashed about by many and has received a sort of wide condemnation from the media, which generally shapes the common man's world view. Not surprisingly, because it tries to upset the cozy nexus between the pliable part of the media and the ruling dispensation. Mrs. Gandhi has suggested a moratorium on the spending of advertisements by the government ( this probably includes both central as well as states) and the PSU sector made. Now, this is being vehemently opposed by the media houses and that by itself tells the story. But is it really such a bad suggestion that she has made. Let us examine logically.
Firstly, if the total monetary value of the advertisements that the central government, state governments, local self-governments, PSU organizations, and the other such bodies spend on advertising is ever calculated in its entirety, then it will surely serve as a shocking eye-opener. Even those who believe that the amount is not much may be surprised. I have not much idea about the expenditure made by the government and public sector on advertisements, but I have a doubt that it may be more than the outlay on the health and education sectors. If somebody can prove me wrong with empirical data from an authentic source, I will accept my mistake and come out with my public apology on this count. Until then, I will continue to hold this view.
So if we go by logic, experience and the situation on the ground, we see that much of it non-core expenditure. So when the country is facing such a severe recession and appeals are being made to the public for voluntary donations, is this expenditure really necessary? That needs to be answered first. Not through glasses tinged with animosity or antipathy, but with cold logic. In fact, the continuation of such expenditure falls under utter profligacy, in my opinion.
Secondly, let us examine if these advertisements are at all necessary, in the first place. Here, many people will come out with justifications saying that dissemination of information by the government amongst the public is of primary importance. Some may go off a tangent and say that this amounts to a stoppage of information. But these counter logics have no leg to stand upon, in this digital age. The government and public bodies all have their websites. Most functionaries have social media accounts like twitter and Facebook. Every day we find a plethora of important and unimportant information being uploaded there. In this context, is it really necessary to find the advertisement about a new bridge built somewhere by full-page advertisements on newspapers or a video clip showing a state government's achievements in providing rice at Rs 2 per kg? Is there any requirement of panchayats and municipalities coming with such advertisements to wish people on national days or religious festivals?
The fact is that these advertisements are majorly done for self-promotion by leaders, cutting across the political spectrum. That includes Mrs. Gandhi's own party too. Therefore, it is commendable for her to give the suggestion. You know, I know, everybody knows that the expenditure for these advertisements come from the public exchequer. So why should we be shy or prejudiced to do away with them? And if someone says that the poor people, the "AAM JANTA" do not have access to the internet or social media, then let me ask the simple question, do these people read newspapers? OK forget that, do you read newspapers? Do these same people who don't use the internet have constant access to TV or radio? And please don't try to give the logic about "rural areas". If you visit any place in India, you will find people sharing fake messages, pornographic contents, rape videos, etc on mobile phones. We try to wish away these things without ever attempting to use the medium to proper use. So it will not be really difficult to transmit and disseminate information on the digital platform. In fact, this will allow participative governance at the grassroots.
Thirdly and most importantly the reality, which can't be put under the carpet anymore. In this world, everything has a price. And the use of government expenditure as largesse to various media houses to toe the line of the ruling dispensation is now the norm everywhere. This unholy nexus creates an alternate world that is far removed from the ground reality. Like people are not informed about the stock and infrastructure of medical facilities, but they are informed about the religion of the infected, in detail. Every news item is given a slant to project the government and the leader. These media houses are no saints, in fact, some of them are vile purveyors of untruth and false news. Their source of sustenance and succour depends upon the government's expenditure on advertising. So it is natural for them to condemn this suggestion by Mrs. Gandhi. But if we believe that the media should be free independent and have their own rules then we must ask why they should be dependant on the public exchequer. If you believe in a free economy and the media houses consider themselves as business organisations then let them provide content and price them accordingly. Why should a private channel or a newspaper depend on the public exchequer( in effect my money)? Let the fittest survive.
The government can always ramp up the Prasar Bharati for advertising and allow the State governments some dedicated slots to publicise their own achievements. This nexus between media channels and political power must end. We must make a beginning somewhere. Perhaps the economic necessity gives us a good reason.
But one thing is certain. The lady talks a lot of sense, whenever she decides to. And I beg her pardon in saying that maybe more sense than her late husband or her dutiful son. And as the head of the supposedly main opposition party of India, it is necessary to hear her without letting personal misgivings about her origins, intentions, affiliations and all theories or stories that we hear about her.
One of her suggestions that she has recently made is one such example of prudent and logical thinking which is being trashed about by many and has received a sort of wide condemnation from the media, which generally shapes the common man's world view. Not surprisingly, because it tries to upset the cozy nexus between the pliable part of the media and the ruling dispensation. Mrs. Gandhi has suggested a moratorium on the spending of advertisements by the government ( this probably includes both central as well as states) and the PSU sector made. Now, this is being vehemently opposed by the media houses and that by itself tells the story. But is it really such a bad suggestion that she has made. Let us examine logically.
Firstly, if the total monetary value of the advertisements that the central government, state governments, local self-governments, PSU organizations, and the other such bodies spend on advertising is ever calculated in its entirety, then it will surely serve as a shocking eye-opener. Even those who believe that the amount is not much may be surprised. I have not much idea about the expenditure made by the government and public sector on advertisements, but I have a doubt that it may be more than the outlay on the health and education sectors. If somebody can prove me wrong with empirical data from an authentic source, I will accept my mistake and come out with my public apology on this count. Until then, I will continue to hold this view.
So if we go by logic, experience and the situation on the ground, we see that much of it non-core expenditure. So when the country is facing such a severe recession and appeals are being made to the public for voluntary donations, is this expenditure really necessary? That needs to be answered first. Not through glasses tinged with animosity or antipathy, but with cold logic. In fact, the continuation of such expenditure falls under utter profligacy, in my opinion.
Secondly, let us examine if these advertisements are at all necessary, in the first place. Here, many people will come out with justifications saying that dissemination of information by the government amongst the public is of primary importance. Some may go off a tangent and say that this amounts to a stoppage of information. But these counter logics have no leg to stand upon, in this digital age. The government and public bodies all have their websites. Most functionaries have social media accounts like twitter and Facebook. Every day we find a plethora of important and unimportant information being uploaded there. In this context, is it really necessary to find the advertisement about a new bridge built somewhere by full-page advertisements on newspapers or a video clip showing a state government's achievements in providing rice at Rs 2 per kg? Is there any requirement of panchayats and municipalities coming with such advertisements to wish people on national days or religious festivals?
The fact is that these advertisements are majorly done for self-promotion by leaders, cutting across the political spectrum. That includes Mrs. Gandhi's own party too. Therefore, it is commendable for her to give the suggestion. You know, I know, everybody knows that the expenditure for these advertisements come from the public exchequer. So why should we be shy or prejudiced to do away with them? And if someone says that the poor people, the "AAM JANTA" do not have access to the internet or social media, then let me ask the simple question, do these people read newspapers? OK forget that, do you read newspapers? Do these same people who don't use the internet have constant access to TV or radio? And please don't try to give the logic about "rural areas". If you visit any place in India, you will find people sharing fake messages, pornographic contents, rape videos, etc on mobile phones. We try to wish away these things without ever attempting to use the medium to proper use. So it will not be really difficult to transmit and disseminate information on the digital platform. In fact, this will allow participative governance at the grassroots.
Thirdly and most importantly the reality, which can't be put under the carpet anymore. In this world, everything has a price. And the use of government expenditure as largesse to various media houses to toe the line of the ruling dispensation is now the norm everywhere. This unholy nexus creates an alternate world that is far removed from the ground reality. Like people are not informed about the stock and infrastructure of medical facilities, but they are informed about the religion of the infected, in detail. Every news item is given a slant to project the government and the leader. These media houses are no saints, in fact, some of them are vile purveyors of untruth and false news. Their source of sustenance and succour depends upon the government's expenditure on advertising. So it is natural for them to condemn this suggestion by Mrs. Gandhi. But if we believe that the media should be free independent and have their own rules then we must ask why they should be dependant on the public exchequer. If you believe in a free economy and the media houses consider themselves as business organisations then let them provide content and price them accordingly. Why should a private channel or a newspaper depend on the public exchequer( in effect my money)? Let the fittest survive.
The government can always ramp up the Prasar Bharati for advertising and allow the State governments some dedicated slots to publicise their own achievements. This nexus between media channels and political power must end. We must make a beginning somewhere. Perhaps the economic necessity gives us a good reason.
No comments:
Post a Comment