'Bazaaru', 'presstitute': From PM Modi to VK Singh, BJP feasts on vocabulary of right-wing trolls

The story goes that Ravana was extremely angry when Hanuman entered Lanka and asked him to set Sita free or face the wrath of her almighty husband. In his hubris, Ravana took Hanuman’s advice as an affront and set his tail on fire. The rest, as we know, is mythology. Indian mythology and culture are full of lessons for those who make the mistake of believing that critics are best humiliated and silenced with brute physical or verbal violence. But even die-hard bhakts of our epics do not seem to get it. Unfortunately, for the votaries of Ram Rajya, when it comes to dealing with critics, Ravana is the real role model. For most of the right-wing leaders today and their followers, dealing with dissent, nay-sayers and uncomfortable questions is a three-step process: If you don’t agree, abuse; if you can’t debate, ridicule; and if you can’t silence them; set their tails on fire. [caption id=“attachment_2189531” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] VK Singh. IBN Live.[/caption] Or, just call them presstitutes. General (retd) VK Singh, the man of many legal, verbal and intra-departmental wars, on Tuesday responded to criticism of his statement on the ongoing rescue operations in Yemen by wondering, ‘what else can be expected of presstitutes!’ The epithet rolled out of foot-perennially-in-mouth Singh after he was slammed for saying–tongue in cheek- the ongoing rescue operation, which he is coordinating, is less exciting than visiting the Pakistan high commission. Singh coordinated a brilliant rescue operation, got accolades for it and then drowned it all in an unnecessary controversy. Singh is known to shoot from the lip, get back at people who annoy him or ask uncomfortable questions, get into ego battles with his colleagues and rivals. In the past, he has shown a remarkable penchant for making allegations—“I was offered bribe in a defence deal”—and then conveniently forgetting where he had misplaced the corroborating evidence. So, it is unlikely that he would back his latest slur with solid evidence and cogent arguments. Yet, Singh’s diatribe is symptomatic of the way Indian right-wingers deal with their critics, especially in the media. When faced with opinion they do not agree with, ideas that do not reinforce their faith, beliefs and prejudices, these rabid supporters of freedom of speech, vocal opponents of 66A, ironically, try everything to silence the critics. Their philosophy is simple: You are either with them, or are automatically considered against them, a desh-drohi, a paid agent of the opponent or the neighbouring country. As Sagarika Ghose once poignantly said: “There’s a disturbing new trend in the Indian media of measuring objectivity and bias. Journalists who believe the politician is their natural adversary and systematically question all politicians are seen as biased, but those who attack only certain politicians and sing hosannas to another politician are seen as objective.” In every Indian school, right at the primary level, we often read Kabir’s famous doha (couplet) advising the company of critics and avoiding sycophants. Throughout our lives we love to vacuously quote Voltaire’s “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’ But most of these cultural values and immortal quotes are conveniently forgotten when the time comes to stand up to them. So, surveys are called bazaaru for rightly predicting a BJP defeat. Patriotism of news anchors is questioned because they didn’t walk out of a discussion where the Indian Prime Minister is compared to a ‘dehati aurat’ by Nawaz Sharif. Reporters are manhandled while covering the PM”s rockstar events in the US for showing similar enthusiasm for covering the Gujarat riots. Journalists are advised to behave like honeybees that collect honey and sting, instead of flies that just spread dirt. And media houses are labeled as ‘newstraders that dance to the Congress party’s tunes.’ In the end, in yet another symptom of rising intolerence, it is the messenger that is shot at, like the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, or attacked online with the murderous rage of those who routinely behead bloggers in Bangladesh. Only the weapon, so far, is different. The truth, ironically, might be completely different from the verdict that is generally pronounced on the media industry by right wingers and their followers. In a country where the revenues are heavily dependent on government advertising and not on circulation, many media houses often kow tow to the government in power. They are quite circumspect in their criticism of the people in power, wary of taking on the government and often succumb to external pressure. To think that an industry that is so inextricably tethered to the government can stray into ‘presstitution’ is a travesty of the truth.