In a recent episode of “Devil’s Advocate” on August 19, 2011, Sri Ashuthsh, who I believe is the chief editor of CNN-IBN, addressed the question from Sri Karan Thapar about whether the media’s coverage of Anna Hazare’s movement was driven by a desire for TRPs. Ashuthsh candidly admitted that if he were to deny it, he wouldn’t be telling the truth. At least he was honest in his response. Sri Deepankar Gupta correctly observed that it was the media chasing Anna, not the other way around, despite accusations that the movement was media-created. Sri Chandrabanu went so far as to claim that the movement was a middle-class, urban, elitist, and upper-caste phenomenon. He suggested that once the media attention waned, both the crowd and the movement would vanish (“Face the Nation,” Miss Sagarika Ghosh, CNN-IBN). Chandrabanu also pointed out the lack of Dalit representation among the agitators and in Anna’s panel, accusing the movement of primarily serving upper-caste interests. Thankfully, he stopped short of labeling it anti-Dalit. This raises the question: should issues and movements be framed around minorities, Dalits, chauvinistic nationalism, or political agendas, rather than addressing core issues affecting the common man?
On NDTV, after covering Anna’s events extensively, the news anchor briefly shifted to other parts of India on August 18 but quickly returned to the Anna coverage, illustrating the channel’s dependence on maintaining high TRPs. This underscores the irony of accusing Anna and his team of media craving when the media itself is deeply entrenched in the coverage. In the current media-dominated world, no channel can avoid reporting on Anna’s events. DD News, which I regularly watch, did not broadcast live coverage of Anna’s movement, focusing instead on government perspectives—a predictable outcome given that it is a government channel. Despite the need for media to inform the public, the excessive focus on this event reveals a ‘trap’ created more by media practices than by others.
Regarding the criticisms of Anna and his team’s methods as ‘non-democratic’ and ‘unconstitutional,’ my view is that if their actions were truly undemocratic and unconstitutional, a constitutionally backed, democratically elected government would not have felt compelled to bow to their demands. However, the government’s reactions—acting, then reacting, and then retreating—have undermined its democratic credibility and constitutional authority, making it appear more like a performer than a legitimate authority.
While I have reservations about certain aspects of Anna and his team’s approach, my opinion has been shaped by watching the special episodes of “Devil’s Advocate” with Arvind Kejriwal and Prashant Bhushan, and the interviews on “Aapki Adalat” (India TV), NDTV, and other discussions. It seems that many in the government, Congress (including Manish Tiwari, who has been notably silent), and opposition camps have hastily labeled Anna and his team as arrogant, undemocratic, and unconstitutional without fully engaging with their perspectives.
In this period of upheaval, it is challenging to remain neutral, and drawing conclusions prematurely is problematic—not solely because of Anna and his team’s actions, but due to the government’s and Congress party’s responses. The opposition, particularly the BJP, seems to have ceded its role to Anna and his team. The interplay of Anna’s actions, government reactions, and opposition inaction only adds to the confusion rather than offering clear guidance on public sentiment against corruption.
For now, waiting and observing remains the only viable course of action.
Note: As anticipated by many and in line with the desires of certain politicians, Anna’s movement eventually reached its logical conclusion, fading from public memory over time. Only those who study or document the history of this period may offer a brief mention of him—though even that will likely depend on the historian’s agenda and political leanings.
Dayanand Bharati
Gurukulam, August 22, 2011, revised on 9-11-2024
Leave a Reply