Shrill outrage doesn’t make for mature debate

Outrage is in the air. The nation is collectively up in arms and in high dudgeon about almost everything. India has capitulated to Pakistan — that’s a national disaster! India has buckled under US pressure and given up its sovereignty — that’s a national shame! A former Indian president was frisked by a foreign airline — that’s a national insult! The eclipse could not be seen because of the clouds — that’s a…No, hang on a minute. I just made up the last one. But you get the general idea.

The blame is not merely on the UPA government — it is on Manmohan Singh. He got suckered in by the Pakistanis and he is sucking up to the US. As far as Kalam’s frisking is concerned, that could also be an American ploy to belittle us. Give them an inch and they will become our rulers. And who encouraged them in the first place? It’s Manmohan Singh, of course.

Everything is discussed and objected to at a high pitch. Politicians shout in Parliament and television studios and the media - television channels and sadly, even the newspapers - go into outrage mode. It is the job of opposition parties to put the government of the day on the defensive; alas, it is a job that has been very badly done in recent times. Rushing to the well of the house, using hyperbole instead of cold logic or walking out of the Lok Sabha is dramatic but essentially ineffective.

If anything, this kind of behaviour distracts from the main objective and allows the government to get off the hook. It makes for a complacent government which is bad for democracy. The Left occasionally manages to do a good job, but the BJP is too preoccupied with its internal troubles to have a cohesive game plan and the Yadavs (and other sundry small groups) are worried only about their political survival.

In the absence of any cogent arguments, they fall back on rhetoric or heap ridicule. There is much to criticise the UPA about — some of its recent actions are mystifying — but that requires serious study and preparation of a strong counter-argument laid out point by point. An explanation or defence can then be given; that is how civilised debates are held.

This breach should be filled up by the media but isn’t. There is no dearth of good commentators. But barring a few honourable exceptions, simplistic placebos are offered instead of considered argument. Television of course is now reduced to templated entertainment — three politicians, an expert, a hectoring anchor who does not allow anyone to complete a sentence and periodic commercial breaks. Plus viewer polls that reduce an entire debate to one silly question that can be answered with a yes or a no.

QOTD (Question of the Day) — did Manmohan Singh sell India down the river in Sharm-el-Shaikh? Answer Y or N, quickly followed by the amazing revelation that 85 per cent said Y. Eighty five per cent of how many — 20, 200, 2000 or two lakh? We never get to know. Not that the print media, which is now heavily being influenced by 24/7 news, is any less culpable.

The problem with being shrill about every ‘controversy’ is that in the end we don’t get a sense of the relative importance of issues. All of them are equally important in themselves but we cannot get worked up about each one to the same extent. Instead of clarity, this hyperventilation ends up obfuscating the subject. What exactly is the End User Agreement? The opponents say it will allow intrusive American examination of all the sensitive technologies imported from the US. The government says such agreements have always existed — they are just being bundled into one umbrella arrangement. Does this force us to buy American products? Not at all. Do other countries follow such arrangements? We don’t know. There is no light in all the heat that was generated.

Take the Kalam frisking issue. Did the airline do something that was legally wrong or are we talking about lack of courtesy and protocol? Kalam himself was quite sanguine; his secretary said he insists on being frisked like any other citizen. The bigger question here is, why do we still have a feudal mindset that allows hundreds of ‘VVIPs’ (and their sundry relatives) immunity from being frisked at airports? But before that question could come up, our aviation minister (perhaps happy to get a diversion from his Air-India problems) announced the Kalam controversy in Parliament, honourable members began their shouting, the media waded in and the nation was suitably outraged.

How many such subjects have come and gone, getting hyper-media play for a day or two till the next bit of breaking news comes up? Stories about Indians being beaten up in Australia barely make it to the papers; a few days ago, the channels were baying for Australian blood. After the 26/11 attacks only a war with Pakistan would have satisfied the pumped up national mood. The controversies of today too will pass.

We are yearning for recognition as a big power. We want to be taken seriously as an important global player. But that requires maturity and the confidence to take on the world. We cannot emulate an adolescent for whom a pimple or a bad hair day or a failure in a test, are all crises of the same magnitude. Debate is good; mindless anger is not. The government is answerable to the people of this country, but shouting at it defeats the purpose. Everyone, from politicians to breathless TV anchors needs to cool down.