In search of a healthy public discourse

I have been contemplating a lot about debates that happen in public space now-a-days. TV has become a media of shrill shouts and extreme opinions. A balanced or nuanced stand is neither possible in 30 sec window that you get, nor appreciated.

People are in a hurry to put you in two boxes – Sanghi or Commie/Secular/Lib. Middle ground has caved in under the onslaught of noisy rhetoric. You will be lynched verbally if you seem to have deviated from your stated or assumed position in public discourse. This logic is followed on instant opinion social platforms like Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp and even quick on the uptake news portals.

Woe be on a Shekhar Gupta if he praises a Bullet train. Is he sold? Censure a Ratan Sharda if he ever praises a Muslim. How dare he betray Hindu cause? These are just two examples. Readers can think of 100 of such instances in which they might have reacted this way. Every person in public debate has faced such censure from audience on both side.

Why have positions hardened so much? Why have debates become so shrill? Why there is no middle ground anymore?

I would go back to 2013 and not begin with 2014. It was the time when Narendra Modi’s march to Prime Ministership of India began. Till that moment public space was dominated by Left, so-called liberal, secular crowd whether in media or academics.

So sure and comfortable were they of their monopoly that they could be condescending towards ‘un-intellectual’ hoi-polloi who had firm faith in India and its glory but weren’t articulate enough, nor given space in public debate. They were simply ‘untouchables’. The debates would be one-sided with some graceful “fair enough” remark to cut short a poor non-Left panellist. Thus, debates were ‘graceful’.

Views of non-Left would never find space in mainstream newspapers and magazine. Somewhere around this time, the Social Media exploded.

Social media gave the non-Left thinkers and silenced masses a new way out to have their say. It was during this churning that Narendra Modi arrived. TV editors recognised his TRP value and began broadcasting his campaign. The average quiet non-Left found its voice. He/She began to talk back to high-brow socialites and demi-gods of public discourse. This was intolerable to the intellectual ruling class. The graceful reasonable panellists suddenly became loud, shrill and unhappy. All hell broke loose.

Left intellectual rulers couldn’t bear being criticised. Thus, its own criticism of non-Left bordering on abuse was treated as genuine critique; but non-Left criticism became trolling. Then, on the scenario went on to become more and more polarized. Left was no more Right and for the Left, Right was always wrong.

Extreme right (I don't approve of this term, but just for argument sake) began enjoying sense of power through Social media with Modi’s win and became even more aggressive while Left went into mourning with gradual loss of power. Resentful Liberals became truly illiberal when it came to public discourse. A self-styled historian could accuse ‘Right’ of having no intellectual capability. Famed journalists could end up using scandalous abusive language.

Vehemence became the language of discourse on both sides. TV debates set the tone, and other media followed it.

This extreme positioning reflects on real life now. There is no space for average moderate Kashmiri or Muslim in public discourse about Jammu & Kashmir or on Muslim Laws. Thus, majority of affected people are left out of genuine debates. TV editors have reduced debates to binaries, whether on the Left or the non-Left side. Style may be different but their ideas are clearly one sided.

I see a ray of hope because of three public debates that have recently taken place on news portals and print media –

ü Sinha vs Sinha debate on state of Indian economy via Indian Express and Times of India. I found it very interesting that father-son duo, one a past power wielder and the other the current power wielder, presenting their argument on a very critical and important subject. There have been some highly informed and sober articles in other newspapers and news portals too. I am sure such articles will educate Indian citizens in true sense.

ü A debate ensued on stopping a lecture about Bhagini Nivedita to be delivered by the RSS chief. I wrote an article and sent it to The Print. They converted this into a debate with another piece written by Brajesh Kalappa. I thought it was an excellent idea.

ü Most enlightening has been a series on Uniform Civil Code – One Nation, One Law - by Times of India. It has been a long running series with quality writings from people across political and social spectrum. This is the way a public debate should be run. Informed and informative, helping people take a reasoned stance.

I have seen mellowing down or slight change of course by professed secular, left, liberal opinion leaders. They are slowly trying to be less vehement and take a more reasoned stand.

Will this trend catch on? I hope so. We cannot live in perennial anger and outrage. We cannot grow as a society unless are open to hearing the other side. We cannot have an informed discussion if either side goes back to ‘what-about’ arguments or derails them with irrelevant deviations in arguments.

I do hope that the established opinion leaders will recognise the times and give due rightful place to the other side in debates and discussions; and let public discourse become more educative and purposeful.