In The Name of News...???

In The Name of News…???

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
Because he has anointed me
To bring Good news to the ignorant
For they believe what they see
He sent me to proclaim the Truth to the insignificant mass
And recovery of intelligence, for they are amused by irrelevance
Bring fire on those who manufacture truth
Set freedom free from ‘free market’...”

This will be the Messianic manifesto in this world of gizmos for “people will come to love their oppression and adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think.” It was the technology of television that made possible a mode of communication with image and sound and conquered limitations imposed by space and time. It shrunk the world to the level of Marshall McLuhan’s notion of Global Village. The ‘window’ to reality was replaced by ‘idiot box’ which made a shift from witnessing reality to ‘watching reality’. Watching reality was a trend started in American and European countries and now very much a phenomenon in India. At present, with about 250 channels made available to about 112 million homes, there is no area of human experience that is alien to television.

Of all television programmes ‘news’ has the greater potential to dictate and to control the cognitive ability of people, by presenting the manufactured reality of the world in a condensed form. Due to its compulsions of immediacy and novelty, quality and utility of the news is replaced by quantity of news. With its extraordinary potential its only aim is to subject humanity to the agendas of the dominant and to aggressive advertising, thereby creating a captive culture. While conceding the fact of television’s contribution to modernity, it is one’s critical task to analyse dynamics of the dictatorship of media.

Television broadcasting began in India in 1959, with the grant of UNESCO to achieve political integration, economic development and social modernisation. So, broadcasting was harnessed to the task of political nation building, national integration and the development of a national consciousness. There were only 21 TV sets, which were installed at different places in Delhi. Programmes were broadcasted twice a week, each with 20mts duration. This may be contrasted with present-day proliferation of channels and diluted objectives - a degradation created by the New Economic Policy of 1991. It allowed the entry of foreign private satellite channels into India like CNN and Star TV. By 1996 the number of channels increased to 50. Of course, now the count is around 250. On the news front, though there was a rise of news programmes on private channels, year 2000 witnessed the first news channel ‘Aaj Tak’. It gave rise to a new generation – a newsy (messy) generation that lives always with an attitude of ‘Yeh! Dil maange more’, looks for the insatiable fodder of distractions. Now, this messy generation boasts of 50 news channels in India, and a few more in pipeline, committed to the cause of ‘white man’s burden’. Now all these channels are at war to serve the humanity by littering them with a load of information. It will be interesting to know the factors that accelerated the unlimited appetite for news.

Television is a medium of epistemology. Watching news is considered an exercise of cognition and knowing (knowledge). Notions of truth and intelligence are organised around news (Mass-Media). So, often children at home and students at school are asked to watch only news, we see people hurrying to watch news, for the fear of missing something, we also hear some say “I watch only news,” “I watch only BBC,” I watch only CNN,” for they think watching news is a greater intellectual activity out of greater free will, and they take pride in watching news.

Watching news is not out of greater free will, but out of compulsion. Since the beginning, humanity is compelled by curiosity to know. Knowing is a dire need of humanity. The greatest punishment one can be given is solitary confinement. One is deprived of his/her curiosity to know. Curiosity is driven from ‘libido’ and it is also a sensual satisfaction of the senses. Anything that satisfies the senses is entertaining. So, watching news is entertaining. It is often said by many “Today there is nothing special in the news” because news didn’t appeal to their senses. The insatiable attraction for ‘curiosity’ is further exploited by presenting all subject matter in an entertaining way.

Now the news is lighter and more digestible with short cycles interspersed with lot of soft news. Reports on crime, night life, lifestyle, business news, movies, find their way into news. The worse part of Indian news is the undue coverage of the idiotic colonial vestige called cricket, scandals, and immoral sting operations. All of them are surefire entertainment. A new breed of news readers with spiffy looks, robed in designer jackets, hair glistening with gel, look more like news jockeys than news readers. Watching news is so entertaining that virtual world seem more real than the real world that we are again and again invited to be part of it- “Join us in the next bulletin”.

Committed to their mission of amusing and entertaining, news broadcasters are on a continuous run to gather new information over vast spaces at incredible speed. In their attempt to feed more they end up reporting discontinuous and fragmented events. Before we could even know what those events are about we are fed with another dose of discontinuous and fragmented events and it goes on. We are continuously distracted with discontinuous and fragmented events. We are happy about it, for we never know what our problems are.

On an average there are eight slots of news in a day, each running to 30 minutes. Many minutes of news manage to give us de-contextualised information from nowhere, addressed to no one in particular. The abundant flow of information has very little or nothing to do with those to whom it is addressed. Aldous Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and the truth would be drowned in the sea of irrelevance. How often information provided on news affected our plans of the day? It may be for those involved in stock market. But what is their percentage?

News channels cannot hang on to any issue for a long time, so they always look for new issues and precipitate crisis like political unrest, disasters, and wars. The crisis-driven media report these crises in spectator-friendly format like a spectacle, like a sport. It is appropriate to recall the footage of gulf war, war in Afghanistan and in Iraq, for they were more like footage from Hollywood flicks. It shouldn’t be a point of surprise if somebody watched them with a pack of chips and coke. We are thrilled about wide coverage, for crisis has become an item to consume. (Occasionally the crisis becomes an opportunity for those desperate photographers to fight each other to get the pictures of desperate people in crisis. Those photos appear on glossy magazines and get paid heavily).

It is argued that proliferation of news channels stand witness to the democratic India. But rather it should be observed that the label of democracy has become an excuse for breeding far too many news channels. It is ironic that in democracy free speech has become a commodity in a free market that is auctioned to the highest bidders. Free speech is bought and sold. Free speech is for those who can afford it and they are free to manufacture truth.

Manufactured truth is never free, for it is manufactured. So, the news channels sell the ‘insignificant mass’ to the advertisers without their consent. The only mistake we commit is to consume ‘manufactured truth’ and become captives. The news channels are paid brokerage by advertisers for the services rendered to them. The ad revenue that news channels earned in 2005 was Rs 550 crores, and it is expected to be Rs 1000 crores by 2008. Major news channels charge about Rs. 22,000 for a 10 sec spot, in a prime time news segment. In a thirty minutes segment, an average commercial break is about six minutes (360 secs). So, the revenue from commercials during a primetime news segment is about Rs. 7,92,000 leaving aside the revenue from scroll text ads. It is simple mathematics to calculate the revenue for a single day. It’s all business and business rules the truth.

In this chaotic newsy generation we have many versions of truth, but we are never faced with the truth. Seeking and presenting the truth is the highest vocation of social communication. It’s high time for humanity to be responsible to stand witnesses to the truth, for Jesus said “You will know the truth and the truth will make you free” (Jn 8:32). Jesus never allowed himself to be manipulated; rather he stood for truth, fought for truth and laid down his Life for truth. The Calvary stands testimony to His truth. Spirit of Jesus may inspire us to stand against manipulation in this messy generation and fight the forces of manipulation to free the humanity from captive culture.

B. J. Shailendra S. J

Seminar: Windows on Dialogue

“Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit” an apt recollection of Gandhi on religious intolerance in this age of religious exclusiveness and fundamentalism. True Religion is one that of truth, transcending over differences and limitations to promote peace and harmony. Towards this dream, South Asian Jesuit Secretariat for Dialogue, in association with St. Francis Xavier Movement had convened a two day seminar on inter-religious dialogue “Windows on Dialogue” from 15-16th of February at Indian Social Institute, New Delhi. It facilitated the deliberations and sharings by different intellectuals belonging to all major religions of India, namely Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism and subaltern traditions. First day of the proceedings addressed the question “How far can a religion be theologically reshaped in the encounter with the other, remaining both meaningful for its adherents and open to other believers?”.

Prof. Bettina Baeumer, President of Abhishiktananda Society, in her inaugural address stressed the primacy of spiritual experience one's own religion, in inter religious dialogue, for only when we have experienced that core in one's own religion, one can be open to other traditions and religions. It is spiritual experiences that converge going beyond Institutional and theological differences. Elevating the importance on de-identification she said “ if the aim of religion is to liberate its followers, this liberation has to go along with a de-identification , breaking down walls and limitations, based not on Divine revelation or enlightenment, but on narrow ego centred human identification. She also cautioned against the fashionable usage of “Dialogue”.

Fr. Michael Amaladoss, S.J., presently Director of the Institute of Dialogue with Cultures and Religions, Loyola College, and author of several books and articles presented a paper on “Indian Christian Theological Issues in the context of Inter- Religious Dialogue”, in which a he set a context of multi-religious and multi-cultural that led to violence and conflict, inequality and injustice, wide economic disparities between rich and poor, political imbalance between powerful and powerless, social discriminations on the basis of caste and gender. So, he envisaged the goal of dialogue to establish the Kingdom of God - a community of freedom and equality, fraternity and justice, with a preferential option for the marginalised. Calling on followers of different religions in realising this goal, he quoted John Paul II “As followers of different religions we should join together in promoting and defending common ideals in the spheres of religious liberty, human brotherhood, education, culture, social welfare and civic order. Suggesting the need for participating and following the other religious traditions he said that positive view towards other religions should also extend to the usage of their scriptures, symbols, and participation in their worship. He aptly concluded quoting John Paul II “We can call God by names, without ever completely exhausting His reality, which is beyond us.”

Theological issues from Hindu perspective were presented by Prof. Kapil Kapoor, a Retired Professor of English and Concurrent Professor of Sanskrit studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi. Talking development No God, One god, many Gods, Prof. Kapoor explained the nature of deity as formless, form with attributes, form without attributes, form with necessity of attributes. Based on the notions of Dualism and Non-Dualism, he said Monotheistic(formless) religions like Judaism practice Book Worship, pantheistic(form) religions like Hinduism practice Idol worship. He viewed goal of all religions are for salvaging oneself/other.

Theory of nama(Name) was central to the presentation of Prof. J.P.S. Uberoi, Professor of Sociology at Delhi School of Economics, who presented theological issues from Sikh Perspectives. Explaining the theory of name he mentioned about personal name of God – YHWH, by which He is addressed, written but never uttered; Generic names of God – Creator, Ruler, and Judge, which refer to role and functions of God; God qualified by attributes and qualities. Explaining the revelation of Name, he said “prophets saints and other spirituals are regarded as individuations or particular examples of the “perfect man”, the microcosm, while the universal category or the species “perfect man” is the complete theophany, the macrocosm, the totality of the divine names and attributes through which the divine essence or the godhead reveals itself to itself, its virtualities in its actuality, manifested in multiple names and forms, vassals of love.”

Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer, a liberation theologian and communal harmony activist He was given Right ivelihood awardee from Swedish Foundation; had subscribed to the inclusive nature of religion in his presentation on Sufi Theological issues. He said that Sufi Islam is highly inclusive and tolerant, love and peace are central to Sufi Islam. Articulating the inclusive nature of Sufi Isalm, he quoted Moinudin-Ibn- Arabi, a Sufi Saint “my heart is centre of love for God, my heart is synagogue a church, mosque and temple, because in all these places god is remembered and loved”. Talking on the doctrine of existance he said “existence is one we are all manifestations of that being real being is one. We are all manifestations of that being. This concept have very significant implication for inter religious harmony. Because it demolishes all walls of separation. We are all manifestations of one being. And so we are all one. There shouldn’t be any wall of separation.” Further he commented that no religion is to mislead people. Religions may be different in form and content, they are different not because of content but but because of differences in culture and geography.

Theological Issues from European Perspectives were presented by Dr. Ambrogio Bongiovanni. He is Founder and President of the Saint Francis Xavier Movement; Acting Director of the Institute for the Study of Religions and Culture of the Gregorian University in Rome; Professor at the Gregorian University and Pontificia Universita Urbaniana, Rome. Talking on the need for inter-religious and cultural dialogue he said “Our time is a time of transition and anxiety. Dialogue has a meta value. Encounter with different cultures/faiths is not rid of tension. There is threat to identity, arising from fear. We need to understand that 'the other' is not a threat but an opportunity to interact”. His other views are need to Dialogue between Philosophy and Theology: How to reconcile the question of 'uniqueness' in inter-religious dialogue? Church needs to continue to offer 'service to the truth'. Our understanding of inter-religious dialogue and religious pluralism has consequences in the pedagogical approach, Dialogue is for peace, justice and ethics… moving from peaceful coexistence to a sharing of values and a new consciousness of the other…


Mr. Naresh Mathur is a Supreme Court lawyer from Delhi, has studied Buddhist Madyamika philosophy privately with Geshe Palden Drakpa at Tibet House in Delhi,trustee of Root Institute since 1984 and was Director of Tushita Mahayana Meditation Centre in Delhi. He started to share Buddhist perspectives by quoting John Paul II from his book ' Crossing the Threshold of Hope “what unites us is much greater than what separates us. It is necessary to rid ourselves of stereo types, old habits, and above it is necessary to recognize the unity that already exists” . And Mr. Mathur continued: “Buddhists may not accept a creator God, but certainly we accept mind as creator and which mind not everyday ordinary mind. But a subtle mind. If u look beyond the characteristics of subtle mind are not different from God in Christian tradition... According to Dalai Lama, the differences are necessary and desirable. The buddhist attitude to each religious tradition is that of deep respect. Why because each religious tradition has benefited countless number of mental dispositions. Something appeals to some one , something appeals to someone else. May I say that unity needs to be experienced and that which separates us needs to be understood.

Theological Issues on Subaltern perspectives were presented by Dr. John Mundu S.J., he is the Director of Jesuit Regional Theologate Centre, Ranchi. He restricted himself to the Adivasis of Jharkhand, addressing the subaltern perspective. In the first half of presentation he had enumerated the hsitory of Jharkhand Adivasis from the state of prosperity to the distorted, dehumanised, disfigured, colonised and marginalised state. Questioning the denial of adivasi identity he said “The passing of the anti conversion law and law for the protection of cows are examples of fundamentalist groups influence on Government and distortion of conciousness of people. The temples along the road side and the junctions are set up and named 'prachin mandir' (ancient temple) which they had erected recently. the adivasis are called vanavasis, in a bid to change their historical consciousness, history and identity. In such a situation what does the inter-religious dialogue mean for adivasis, if their identity is not recognised?” In this process of imposition of one vision of life as espoused by one religious tradition and people, destroying the alternative visions of life, Dr. Mundu envisaged that the dialogue first and foremost should identify and acknowledge the human degradation of its subaltern dialogue partner. The dialogue should go beyond dialectical dialogue of doctrines and opinions to the mysterious hidden interdependence among things and beings is the core of Indigenous people's vision of life.

Second day of the Seminar started with a presentation of the summary by Prof. Leonard Fernando S.J, who threaded through the Issues that were discussed on the first day. This day the seminar dealt with “What should be the social impact of these new relations, and how working together, the different religious traditions can have real impact in the concrete life of the people?

Dr. Rudolf C. Heredia S.J addressing on “ Dialogue Responding to Social Concerns” said that a visible and sustainable perspective on dialogue must be premised not on a walled-in consciousness of a colonised mind, nor on the rootless wonderings of the uncommitted spirit, rather it must be a serious quest for a mutually enriching encounter. Talking on the need for critical interrogation of our multicultural and pluri-religious society, he quoted Gandhi “I do not want my house to be walled on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But i refuse to be blown off my feet by any of them.” Dr. Rudy explained how the diverse traditions can be used as resources to understand and respond creatively and constructively to our present crisis: “We must do this with the Jaina concept of anekantavada (the many-isdedness of truth), and Syadavada (the interrelatedness of things); with the Buddhist outreach in Sarvabhutadaya (universal compassion); with the advaitic relativising of mayavada and avidhya; the Upanishadic ideal of vasudhaiva kutumbam (the universal family); with the materialistic rationalism of Carvaka; with the religious pluralism, the sarva-dharma-sambhavana, of the sufi bhakti heritage of our sant-kavis, with the Islamic ijitihad (creative interpretation) and fiqh (jurisprduence), with the Bhagavadgita and the Sermon on Mount.”

After a heavy intellectual deliberations, to arrive at an effective module of action group discussion was arranged. In different groups participants discussed the given topics. Responding to the concern over building relationships across religious communities, participants voiced out to find spaces of openness within one's own religious traditions; impart value-oriented sessions for students; being critical towards oneself and one's religion; instead of exclusive places of worship, have inclusive venues; encourage inter-faith marriages; accepting the other with one's cultural baggages; building bridges; walking with people of different groups; shed prejudices/complexes about the 'other'; emphasize breaking point and multi-level dialogue; use of art/culture; dialogue with self (intra-personal) before dialoguing with others; the notion of 'institution' entails the concept of 'border' – therefore, deinstitutionalize religions; contextual understanding of religious traditions from the perspective of the marginalized/subalterns…

Beiing exposed to friends of various religions, different religious practices, Scriptures, worship places, pilgrim centres every body agreed the experience embodiment universal spirit, universal humanity. answering the question of carrying forward the learning experience of listening to others to a deeper level many suggeted to make the family a basis for witness, immersion and action,through retreats and spiritual practices one has to deepen spirituality and humanity; need to LISTEN in order to become aware of the richness and problems of the 'other'; Dialogue of life by participating in people's lives and festivals.

Participants valued it as a well organized, rich in thought presentations coherent presentations; discovery new 'commonalities' for better relationships;'subaltern perspective' was emphasized; inspirational; informative.

Windows on dialogue was convened by Fr. Victor Edwin S. J, Secretary, Jesuit Secretariat for Dialogue and Dr. Gaetano Sabetta, Member of St. Francis Xavier Movement (St. Francis Xavier Movement is lay catholic movement in Italy to promote harmony and peace), Director of Dialogue Centre, Delhi; Consultant for the Indo-Italian Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

B. J. Shailendra S. J