Josh Billings once wisely said that, "Silence is one of the hardest arguments to refute". Little did this man realise that this statement of his written in the prologue to a book would hold direct relevance and strike an instant chord with an average Indian citizen 126 years after his demise. For it is for all to see that today we face the wrath of the Prime Minister with the tethered tongue which ,therefore, leads to a silence that would make even the most steadfast Buddhist monk kowtow in adulation.
In the words of seasoned journalist Rajdeep Sardesai, media has the power to magnify sounds and images, but also to distort them. The camera is Shiva's third eye; it sees the negatives and the positives and does not blink. There is no contesting the fact that in this age of the Right to Information, media is the fourth pillar of democratic India after the judiciary, the legislature and the executive, and in a few cases even ahead of them. A diligent government will not only realise the power of the media but will regularly harness it to its advantage, something which the UPA 2 government is failing to do.24 hour media is a ruthless carnivore dependent on binge eating of stories to tell. If in such situations the govt. comes up short of providing them fodder, opportunists like Hazare will. The Jantar Mantar rally and the night long Ramdev debacle were events tailor made for tv, garnering audiences much in excess of Ballika Vadhu.
The word on the street says that silence is a manifestation of guilt. Actions do speak louder than words, but does that mean you stop speaking? Considering the case of the Congress "triumvirate", such words all but seem appropriate. Manmohan Singh, our honourable Prime Minister, has held just two live press conferences and no personal interviews in the two years of his UPA 2.He might feel slightly under-confident of his oratory skills but the door of print journalism is always open. It is definitely not a wise analysis to draw analogies between mere impressive oratory and good governance ,but in times of distress plaguing the country, the common man needs reassurance much before he needs a resolution. Lack of regular interaction with his people and unwillingness to do so has created a trust deficit for Mr. Singh which seems to be deep rooted. Strong words precede strict implementation. Conveniently overlooking these facts, Mr. Singh has simply confirmed the notion that he is in office, but not in power.
Sonia Gandhi, on the other hand, seems to have lost the acumen to handle the media to her advantage. Seen as a sagacious media pet in the run up to the elections, she seems to have lost her way once her party has gained power leaving the impression that she ,too, craves for power sans accountability.
Shifting the focal point to the epicentre of "youth" politics in India, Mr.Rahul Gandhi, the man branded by many as the future PM. With shibboleths like "most eligible bachelor" and "youth icon" already admonishing his curriculum vitae, his candidature seems overwhelmingly strong to get the job. However, in spite of brave efforts at grass root politics, what Rahul Baba has failed to do is connect with the youth, primarily due to his abstinence from the English media, the one that actually connects with the "youth" in question. Speeches in a bunchful of Delhi University auditoria behind closed doors is not enough to capture the eye of the millions constituting the youth.
History bears testimony to the fact that the most influential of world leaders have never been media shy. Be it the Margaret Thatchers, the Indira Gandhis, the Winston Churchills, or the Roosevelts.The greatest power of speech is vested in the hope it provides. The tale of King George VI depicted in the Oscar winning movie "The King's Speech" exemplifies this fact. One can even consider the case of Barack Obama whose victory in the Presidential election was largely attributed to his regular media interaction. In spite of him being subjected to regular criticism during his tenure, his synergy with the media never diminished and today he is valiantly contesting for a second term in office.
Just yesterday after the Mumbai attacks, Mr.Chidambaram in a statement to the media said that the terror attack in Mumbai happened after a period of 31 months. He further went on to say that the govt. has been effective in cracking down and thwarting all but one terrorist attacks in this period. He then enunciated a few stats and figures regarding the number of terrorists caught, the kind of explosive materials recovered, contrabands held etc. If such is the case, why is the govt. reluctant to speak to the media openly about its achievements? If all is well when it comes to tackling terrorism, is it not the moral responsibility of the govt. to tell its people through the media that the atrocities that have been lashed out on them will not take place again and they are taking affirmative action to ensure that? Or did they have an apprehension that it might become a case of letting the cat out of the bag too soon? Seems like they favoured the latter and their apprehension wasn't misplaced.
It is a well known fact that media, especially English hardly determines the outcome of elections because the majority of the votebank does not even have the facility of television and/or satellite tv. But if the govt. is deliberately avoiding the media on this pretext, it is certainly underestimating the outreach of information in this age of the Iphone. There is a dire need for the extraction of more words from the men who matter simply because the public has had enough of Manish Tewaris and Abhishek Manusinghvis desperately trying to defend an ailing government. Lets just hope the Mumbai attacks act as a wake up call and break the silence of the lambs.
