Propaganda as Journalism: How they Play with your Mind

on March 3, 2011

Theme: : :

Kartikey Sehgal

The writer interprets writer Arundhati Roy’s interview by journalist Amitava Kumar as propaganda, and, not journalism.

What is it about Roy that so irks the Indian middle-class and elite? Is it the fact that she has no truck with the sober, scholarly, Brahmanical discourse of the respectable middle-of-the-road protectors of the status-quo?

-Amitava Kumar while interviewing Arundhati Roy (The Un-Victim)

I am not going to define Brahmanical Discourse for you. It’s not defined even in Amitava Kumar’s interview.

Amitava Kumar’s interview with Arundhati Roy, among other things, presumes the dereliction and delinquency of the ‘Brahmanical Discourse’. It assumes the higher moral ground for the interviewee. It also assumes—and very importantly—readers’ knowledge and hatred of the ‘Brahmanical Discourse’.

This interview is an example of subliminally feeding a construct into the readers’ mind; build up the person and present his opponents as second rate individuals; are you one with the modern and liberal attitude of ours, accentuated by the sense of victimhood, superlative adjectives and an endearing photograph?

Amitava Kumar’s interview is, essentially, propaganda. Like the movie review that uses the various figures of speech to denounce a film but never tells you why the film is bad. You are awed (if at all) more by the writing than the content. So when Amitava asks, “Your old friend Baby Bush is gone. But has Obama been any better?” he is announcing that he is one with Arundhati, he is not asking a question but facilitating a statement that is of interest to both the interviewer and the interviewee.

‘We are one, we follow a common progressive ideology, are you with us or are you of the ‘ribaldous right-wing’ type believing in ‘Brahmanical Discourse’? The type, we have, linked to vandalism in the first paragraph of this interview.’

Words and photos are workable propaganda tools (the best, the only?). In the absence of a critical societal culture—a state marked by meekness and over enthusiasm for the media—it is easy to mislay and affect. Hitler did that successfully, and in a society that was meek and under-confident. India faces political and social meekness, and using this non-quality, interviews like these aim to mark out its opponents as propagandist just to gain control of the mental field of the populace. We are heroes, struggling fighting heroes, and they, the opponents, are using your meekness to brainwash you. It is like Hitler telling the people that his opponents are ‘Hitler-esque’.

Hence, to build up on heroism and victimhood, we read a one sided account of how Arundhati’s opponents are facilitating vandalism of her home, how she is under threat and she is laughing and braving through all this; mind you, reader, that the issues deserving discussion are brushed under the carpet. The ‘Brahmanical Discourse’ finds a line, not a paragraph. And no explanation. You are to be awed by the personality, and you will subsequently be awed by the ideology. 

And and, there is no ideological congruity whatsoever in this one-sided affair between the interviewer and his muse (or vice-versa). Arundhati had titled a previous essay of hers as “Gandhi, but with guns”. She often invokes M K Gandhi in her work; she loves using the name though I don’t think she likes him a lot. In the interview under our scanner, she says:

The fact is that if everybody leaves adivasis to fight their own battles against displacement and destitution, it’s impossible to expect them to be Gandhian.

I could browse through her stories and tell you that she has admired Gandhi. And then tell you more that she has called him cunning and theatrical, but in a defined context. Why does she use Gandhi? Is it because now that an image of Gandhi has been set upon the minds of the people, she can use it to supplement the points that will remind people of Gandhi? The same Mahatma had said:

"For me there is no question of superiority or inferiority. A Brahmin who regards himself as a superior being born to look down upon the other castes is not a Brahmin. If he is first [in status] he is so by right of [spiritual] service."

- Mahatma Gandhi, The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (Delhi, 1958-94), Volume XXVI, p. 289.

The same Mahatma, yes, believed in Brahmanism, and all ‘discourses’ that followed. Do Arundhati, Amitava not know this, or, do they expect the reader to not know it; to have been, previously, brainwashed by similar bullying interviews?

Amitava can claim that it is not his duty to define terms for the reader and that he expects a certain education from the reader. Of course, the interview is ‘not meant for all’. However, the avant-garde artistic films are not just visual beauty; results of good camera work; just as, journalism, is not a collection of adjectives. He could have found space for explanations of terms (Brahmanical Discourse) among—or over—the vast space dedicated to pulling down Arundhati’s detractors. And you, the reader…

…should you need to know, and only if you are not already awed by the personality, the meaning of ‘Brahmin’, you could use this, found on the internet:

Then, giving a playful look, he says, “Since, I am Brahmin getting dakshina is my birthright.  If anyone gives me money I will take it. But I will not do their work. I do exactly what I think is right. I play a role of an ancient Brahmin. Today Brahmins are connected to birth. It’s nonsense. It has nothing to do with birth. You have to have vidya (knowledge) and you have to have courage. You should not have any personal wealth…”

Dr. Subramanian Swamy in an interview to Rediff.com

You need to know this or else how do you understand? Unless you have decided beforehand to agree with people you fancy.

And if you are not okay with this definition, or the person in question, then read the Gita or refer to Indian philosophy (For instance, I wonder if a Brahmin should really not have personal wealth). Do some research instead of being willing subjects to journalistic manipulations.

And as for Ms. Roy and Mr. Gandhi…

Years of propaganda, scare and manipulation have ensured that you are not required to know about Mr. Gandhi. The words peace and nonviolence are used as constructs to—and once again I say—brush the reality under the carpet. To ensure that you don’t think, or think, what is required of you to think. The first image that should cross you, when you hear of Gandhi, is the image of victimhood, an old man, struggling, suffering-to fight his opponents. It’s the same sense of victimhood that is shown in this interview. A lady, under attack, but still smiling in the photograph; the first line of the piece stating that:

We
Have to be
Very
Careful
These Days
Because…


Share This Story
[del.icio.us] [Digg] [Facebook] [Google] [StumbleUpon] [Technorati] [Twitter] [Windows Live] [Email] More »
All Rights Reserved With Website Owner