The Television Debates on Propriety & aam admi

The Television Debates on Propriety & aam admi

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 27th June 2015

Television commercial news channels once again seem to be having a spectacle. However, for a change the 'issue' at least seems to be 'real' even if pre-historic. Thankfully it is a 'game' that seem to have most political leaders entangled although the game is 'cricket' rather than the 'game (theory)' usually articulated in these articles in 'Management Paradise'. And as expected with the 'game', it has 'political leaders' run helter-skelter, apart that a few seem to be 'batting' on the margins while some of the older hats seem to be missing from the frontline action. While Indian cricket might have managed to deal with 'Doosra' of Murali variety somehow, it seem to be not having any answers to the 'Teesra' of the Desi variety - either amongst the 'players' or amongst the 'coaches and administrators' as it evident from the 'match' so far. The dreaded 'Teesra' seems to start from 'outside of the field' from any direction and 'damn' straight to wickets mostly from the behind of the 'batsman' and the commentators are expected to cry 'wide' as some others appeal for 'lbw'.

The problem in 'this game' is symptomatic of the problems in our polity. Our highly efficient, trusted and loyal leaders have fickle ideological leanings and loyalties. Nearly everyone in the 'game' knows that if one of the 'accused' becomes a 'turncoat' and joins a rival, he/she almost becomes Mr/Mrs. Clean that too overnight, and 'all Netas' know this. So the Neta business is about having maximum say in a party's affairs and about capability to cause maximum damage; which keeps large Netas going and the rest of the 'party' behind such Netas. The Netas also need money for elections and 'contacts' which can used to oblige 'supporters' including those in the media. They also need to dazzle the 'ordinary' with spectacle, though this faucet might be 'in for a change' with the newer kind of 'game'. All the hogwash in commercial news media will always fail to mention these points and their own role in such 'plays' in the past as well as in present and onus remains on the 'ordinary' to prove this guilt.

The chief problem is the Neta and their reluctance to change amicably in accordance with the new 'game'. The 'falling' Neta knows that it is their damage potential that gets 'party' behind. The damage potential also helped them to cut the best deals from 'opposition' as well. So instead of the raga of loyalties and possible counter to the 'opposition onslaught', it is the back-office management of a different kind to 'fix' issues that play out in such situations. Even the political powerbrokers know of the fact and use this to cut appropriate 'deals'. This happens while the ordinary public gets 'shuddh gyan' from the likes of Bhagwad Gita to keep them hooked to the Netas and the media. While many a media houses may like stoppage of these 'change the game' articles, however their own interest to 'change the game' might not have any credibility since the 'old game' has flourished right under their very nose. It may be noted that 'all' involved and their roles aren't coming out and we only have noise that such a thing might be in offing as of yet. The credibility of such noise for judicial scrutiny and to furnish culpability of 'all' involved is also as questionable as is its intent. So the social media continues with its effort to 'change the game' alongside better and speedier judicial process outcomes for 'cases'. This may mean 'little' political space for those 'Netas' indicted by the process of law, irrespective of party affiliations or leadership size as per 'rules of the new game'.

 

[Swaswati Borpuzari]

The television debates on propriety and the common man, or "aam admi" as they are known in India, have become a significant aspect of public discourse, reflecting the evolving dynamics of media and political engagement. These debates, often aired during prime time, serve as platforms where issues ranging from governance, social policies, to ethical standards are discussed, bringing together politicians, experts, and sometimes even members of the public. The term "aam admi" encapsulates the voice of the average citizen, emphasizing the need for political and social reforms that directly benefit the masses. Propriety, on the other hand, addresses the moral and ethical standards that these policies and public figures are expected to uphold. The intersection of these two concepts in televised debates highlights a growing public demand for accountability and transparency in governance.

These debates often feature lively discussions and heated arguments, which can be both enlightening and polarizing. They provide a space for the aam admi to voice concerns and critique the actions of those in power, thereby fostering a more participatory democracy. However, the format of these debates can sometimes prioritize spectacle over substance, with sensationalism overshadowing nuanced analysis. This can lead to a misrepresentation of issues and a superficial understanding of complex problems. Despite these challenges, the debates continue to play a crucial role in shaping public opinion and influencing policy decisions. They are a testament to the power of media in a democratic society, where the right to question and the quest for propriety are fundamental to the well-being of the common man.

 

[Dhruv Bindhani]

The Television Debates on Propriety & aam admi

By: Amit Bhushan Date: 27th June 2015

Television commercial news channels once again seem to be having a spectacle. However, for a change the 'issue' at least seems to be 'real' even if pre-historic. Thankfully it is a 'game' that seem to have most political leaders entangled although the game is 'cricket' rather than the 'game (theory)' usually articulated in these articles in 'Management Paradise'. And as expected with the 'game', it has 'political leaders' run helter-skelter, apart that a few seem to be 'batting' on the margins while some of the older hats seem to be missing from the frontline action. While Indian cricket might have managed to deal with 'Doosra' of Murali variety somehow, it seem to be not having any answers to the 'Teesra' of the Desi variety - either amongst the 'players' or amongst the 'coaches and administrators' as it evident from the 'match' so far. The dreaded 'Teesra' seems to start from 'outside of the field' from any direction and 'damn' straight to wickets mostly from the behind of the 'batsman' and the commentators are expected to cry 'wide' as some others appeal for 'lbw'.

The problem in 'this game' is symptomatic of the problems in our polity. Our highly efficient, trusted and loyal leaders have fickle ideological leanings and loyalties. Nearly everyone in the 'game' knows that if one of the 'accused' becomes a 'turncoat' and joins a rival, he/she almost becomes Mr/Mrs. Clean that too overnight, and 'all Netas' know this. So the Neta business is about having maximum say in a party's affairs and about capability to cause maximum damage; which keeps large Netas going and the rest of the 'party' behind such Netas. The Netas also need money for elections and 'contacts' which can used to oblige 'supporters' including those in the media. They also need to dazzle the 'ordinary' with spectacle, though this faucet might be 'in for a change' with the newer kind of 'game'. All the hogwash in commercial news media will always fail to mention these points and their own role in such 'plays' in the past as well as in present and onus remains on the 'ordinary' to prove this guilt.

The chief problem is the Neta and their reluctance to change amicably in accordance with the new 'game'. The 'falling' Neta knows that it is their damage potential that gets 'party' behind. The damage potential also helped them to cut the best deals from 'opposition' as well. So instead of the raga of loyalties and possible counter to the 'opposition onslaught', it is the back-office management of a different kind to 'fix' issues that play out in such situations. Even the political powerbrokers know of the fact and use this to cut appropriate 'deals'. This happens while the ordinary public gets 'shuddh gyan' from the likes of Bhagwad Gita to keep them hooked to the Netas and the media. While many a media houses may like stoppage of these 'change the game' articles, however their own interest to 'change the game' might not have any credibility since the 'old game' has flourished right under their very nose. It may be noted that 'all' involved and their roles aren't coming out and we only have noise that such a thing might be in offing as of yet. The credibility of such noise for judicial scrutiny and to furnish culpability of 'all' involved is also as questionable as is its intent. So the social media continues with its effort to 'change the game' alongside better and speedier judicial process outcomes for 'cases'. This may mean 'little' political space for those 'Netas' indicted by the process of law, irrespective of party affiliations or leadership size as per 'rules of the new game'.

This political article offers a truly insightful and illuminating examination of its subject. The writer's writing style is both sophisticated and direct, demonstrating a deep understanding of political dynamics while ensuring accessibility for a broad audience. Their ability to distill intricate political concepts into understandable prose is a significant strength, showcasing a rare blend of academic rigor and communicative flair. The structure is thoughtfully organized, dissecting the political issue into digestible components and presenting them in a logical sequence that enhances the reader's comprehension of cause and effect. This systematic approach allows for a nuanced exploration of the topic. Furthermore, the outstanding clarity of the analysis is a hallmark of this piece. The arguments are presented with such precision, and the implications so plainly laid out, that the article becomes an indispensable resource for understanding the complexities of the political arena.