On Political History, Historical Politicians and Media Manthan

On Political History, Historical Politicians and Media Manthan

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 4th Apr. 2016

Public memory is short and therefore political leaders, parties and commercial news media take it upon themselves to keep reminding public about ‘History’, possibly to help them take considered view. However we are in era of reluctant politicians. The knowledge and understanding of History may possibly be in short supply and history may be repeating itself but not catching the eye. Make no mistakes, since it’s not about any single leader or party.

Hope, we know about story where an ambitious political leader allowed a certain situation during the course of their party’s reign. This possibly led to downfall of the then government. Subsequently some public issues were then followed upon with some dexterously. Lo and behold, the party and political career flourishes again. Now the Taang-devs (hang men) from the party, associates and inspiration takers/givers may be fiddling with the same idea or the same experiment since they feel that it might be a recipe to individual career and of course with little concern about careers of some others. However in current opposition, there seem reluctance to follow public issues (may be with exception to some newbie party, possibly). They would continue to discuss agendas that may have already fizzled out badly in the hope that mistakes from ruling side alone is the key to their own victory (possibly because they defeated themselves and not others, as goes the argument). Hence the charge of reluctant or historical politician.

So we have commercial news media trying desperately to run the party agenda rather than public agenda and giving its bout of Historical Gyan. Rhetoric and Slogans being debated hotly while ration supply not being probed. The socialist claiming violence on their cadres being a key issue rather than say fraud against public funds by cadres of ‘all’ parties. While lack of industrial development does make some sound, however if there are issues with some specific policy other than “some ill designed bridge” where again nearly every party may have a hand. Of course the commercial news media would claim the intellectual upper hand as well as greater understanding of issues.

The elections of a small as well as a large doaba state have clearly shown that policy debates have potential to tilt the ‘’balance of votes’’ quite swiftly and even newbies have chance under them even when pitted against bigwigs with high decibels. Without them, tilting public opinion might be herculean task despite huge efforts to make noise. However, still there seems to be a dearth of policy discussions other than the generic corruption without any specific incident related to dis-functioning public service (which would have allowed public to rally). This happens to be the case where we have mix of old party which have been in power recently, existing ruling party, new parties and old established party/ies that have been out of power for years. Even with this mix, knowledge and understanding of (recent) history does seem to be in short supply. While the author has always maintained a near lack of expertise on the subject, however the commercial news media with its expertise doesn’t seem be ready to broach this debate about history. Is the jaded eye and coloured prism with which history is studied by politicians, parties and commercial news media responsible for this. Let’s see who take to this debate…

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

The interplay between political history, historical politicians, and media has always been a dynamic and often tumultuous relationship, shaping the narratives and outcomes of significant events and movements. Throughout the ages, from the ancient use of oratory and pamphlets to the modern era of digital and social media, the way information is disseminated has profoundly influenced public opinion and political landscapes. Historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill, known for their rhetorical prowess, understood the power of media in mobilizing the masses and swaying political tides. Lincoln's skillful use of the press during the American Civil War helped to galvanize support for the Union, while Churchill's wartime broadcasts bolstered British morale and resistance during World War II. In the 20th and 21st centuries, the media's role has expanded exponentially, with television and the internet revolutionizing the way political messages are crafted and consumed. Politicians like John F. Kennedy and Barack Obama harnessed the media's potential, with Kennedy's charismatic television appearances during the 1960 debates and Obama's innovative use of social media to connect with voters, transforming political engagement and communication. The media, in turn, has become a powerful force in its own right, capable of making or breaking political careers, exposing scandals, and amplifying or silencing voices. This ongoing "media manthan," or churn, continues to redefine the political arena, blurring the lines between governance, public opinion, and media influence, and setting the stage for the complex interactions that define contemporary politics.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

On Political History, Historical Politicians and Media Manthan

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 4th Apr. 2016

Public memory is short and therefore political leaders, parties and commercial news media take it upon themselves to keep reminding public about ‘History’, possibly to help them take considered view. However we are in era of reluctant politicians. The knowledge and understanding of History may possibly be in short supply and history may be repeating itself but not catching the eye. Make no mistakes, since it’s not about any single leader or party.

Hope, we know about story where an ambitious political leader allowed a certain situation during the course of their party’s reign. This possibly led to downfall of the then government. Subsequently some public issues were then followed upon with some dexterously. Lo and behold, the party and political career flourishes again. Now the Taang-devs (hang men) from the party, associates and inspiration takers/givers may be fiddling with the same idea or the same experiment since they feel that it might be a recipe to individual career and of course with little concern about careers of some others. However in current opposition, there seem reluctance to follow public issues (may be with exception to some newbie party, possibly). They would continue to discuss agendas that may have already fizzled out badly in the hope that mistakes from ruling side alone is the key to their own victory (possibly because they defeated themselves and not others, as goes the argument). Hence the charge of reluctant or historical politician.

So we have commercial news media trying desperately to run the party agenda rather than public agenda and giving its bout of Historical Gyan. Rhetoric and Slogans being debated hotly while ration supply not being probed. The socialist claiming violence on their cadres being a key issue rather than say fraud against public funds by cadres of ‘all’ parties. While lack of industrial development does make some sound, however if there are issues with some specific policy other than “some ill designed bridge” where again nearly every party may have a hand. Of course the commercial news media would claim the intellectual upper hand as well as greater understanding of issues.

The elections of a small as well as a large doaba state have clearly shown that policy debates have potential to tilt the ‘’balance of votes’’ quite swiftly and even newbies have chance under them even when pitted against bigwigs with high decibels. Without them, tilting public opinion might be herculean task despite huge efforts to make noise. However, still there seems to be a dearth of policy discussions other than the generic corruption without any specific incident related to dis-functioning public service (which would have allowed public to rally). This happens to be the case where we have mix of old party which have been in power recently, existing ruling party, new parties and old established party/ies that have been out of power for years. Even with this mix, knowledge and understanding of (recent) history does seem to be in short supply. While the author has always maintained a near lack of expertise on the subject, however the commercial news media with its expertise doesn’t seem be ready to broach this debate about history. Is the jaded eye and coloured prism with which history is studied by politicians, parties and commercial news media responsible for this. Let’s see who take to this debate…

This political article is a masterclass in persuasive communication. The writer's writing style is remarkably incisive and authoritative, cutting through complex issues with clarity and conviction. There's a palpable sense of purpose in every sentence, driving the argument forward with intellectual rigor. The structure of the piece is strategically designed to build a compelling case, carefully introducing evidence and counterpoints in a way that maximizes their impact. Each section contributes meaningfully to the overall narrative, leading the reader towards a well-reasoned conclusion. Critically, the clarity with which the political landscape and proposed solutions are articulated is exemplary, leaving no ambiguity about the writer's stance or the implications of their analysis. This is not just reporting; it's a powerful and accessible contribution to public discourse.