Saturday, January 22, 2011

our communication with media leaders:part-2

Mail to media leadership- srl no.14 ( NDTV )

Ref: your recent (December end,2010) article in HT, 'lost in the din'

Dear Ms.Barkha Dutt,

Greetings from 'conscience of the society' the NGO that stands for philosophic initiatives to causes like Reason, Fraternity and reinventing democracy !

We appreciate you for your fresh attempt to introspect about true role of media in modern day democracy. As rightly observed by you, the kind of narratives used by media to pin-down individuals,our own kind of people, were very cruel, and many a times fit for silly school children !

'Kalmadi has been side-lined' , Kalmadi,the man who brought shame to the nation', the killer DSP Rathore', 'the so called human rights-enthusiasts like Arundhti Roy and others' - -the list goes long. What media lost was not the complexity of thought, but the very simplicity of it !

 If Media was truly with the people and their simple, eternal aspirations and concerns, irrespective of  whether under democracy or any other form of government, they wouldn't have been in the opposite camp of people like Arundhati Roy and Swami Agnivesh !

People with mind are at least relieved that  Media have adopted a  different attitude towards Binayak Sen!

A democratic establishment was the most commendable and base act of rationality by the people. Here the political leaders have been given the actual drivers seat in governance of the country. Media had voluntarily taken up the role of  
watch dogs over them. But they were often acting like rebellious adolescents, who does not feel oneness with the establishment but remain as an unattached outsider. It is the mad world of the grown ups, beyond their comprehension. Hence the typical rebellion. It is an attitude sans adult responsibility.

Media, in the democratic set up, should have played the role of a typical insider, an integral part, with the sole responsibility of watch dogs on the ones we had collectively seated on the drivers cabin. They should have been the sole agency for Reason in the democratic establishment. It is extremely heartening that at least now they are opening up in true introspection like in the recent article what you have done!

 What media must represent and express should have been the true 'will' of the people as people have no other route to express their will in governance. People as such, never had clearly shown any will themselves in history. What the leaders forcefully tell them becomes their will. Hence Hitler turned German peoples' will into indulge in the holocaust. China hided behind the iron curtain for long years and still partially remain there was not because of their will. The black slaves never expressed their will to come out free till Abraham Lincoln conscience woken up to its need. Peoples will is like the will of crying babies. They often do not know what they need. They merely feel uncomfortable. When moms understand what they need, they stop crying.

This inability of people to have a rational will was the chief complaint of Plato about Democracy. Hence he commented :

"As to the people, they have no understanding, and only repeat what their rulers are pleased to tell them . …Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride; every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course” . It was peoples will that had poisoned Socrates, his master!
Hence arise the utter responsibility of the most enlightened strata in the democratic society to act as the Reason and will of its people, instead of leaving it in the domain of political players. The latter always had agendas other than that of the welfare of its people in history, and even  today !

Hence, when media too isolate themselves into unrelated domains such as merely reporting the world, mankind get orphaned.

The media need not project themselves as victims of some sort in such articles. Unlike the much complex political arena, media can always initiate a CONCLAVE of its entire leadership, and adopt changed attitudes and mind sets.

You may use our banner to conduct such conclaves if Media can not directly do it. Media houses may kindly join our initiative for reinventing democracy. It is not our personal cause. It is the cause of the nation, or even that of the entire mankind !

Your tv show yesterday about Binayak Sen

The show aired opinions of people from different background and age group. But what impression one can arrive at other than a more confused state of mind? We have narrated some interesting truth about our celebrated faculty of Reason in our blog ‘ the mystery sparkle of Reason’.

One could arrive at conclusions based only upon the premises on the subject available at his disposal. We know well how equipped our mainstream members of public are with relevant premises to air opinion about matters of public domain.  It was the sacred duty of MEDIA to equip and enlighten them first with such knowledge, and not to raise smoke screen in front of their eyes with confusing TV debates. Such debates generally do not convey any final message or conclusion to viewing public !  

Here comes the utter relevance of MASTER PREMISES every one in democracy must be familiar with. Kindly view our blog 'the hidden thread of the growth of human civilization' at our blog link :

At least the anchor should have had such master premises in mind to lead the group into the right conclusions. These are the directives a democracy  and the human civilization as whole must keep in mind to avoid confusion about its route. Without such master premises at the bottom of mind of every one, the debate creates only  smoke screens, behind which the truth always fade away.

Please excuse us for the sheer length of this mail !
Founder secretary
Conscience of the society

Sub: Media is the only strata in society who could realize the under currents behind human violence and unrest !

To: Hindustan Times
Attn: Mr.Vir Sanghvi
Ref: your counter point column 'when the means don't justify the end'

Dear Mr.Sanghvi,

I read your final conclusions of the cause of violence with keen interest. Your conclusion is that some people actively choose the path of violence because they feel they could get away unpunished.

I was into philosophical pursuits from child hood. Causes that lead man to violence was one of my passionate themes of inquiry. You would agree, like poets and artists, philosophers also suffer from special pangs, anguishes and pains about the mystery of life. When poets ' fall upon the thorns of life and bleed' (Shelly?)our thoughts always sink to the bottom, searching for fundamental causes and principles.

Reason, as you would have noticed, has two distinct functions- - one, it helps to arrive at the most mathematically correct conclusion out of all given premises, and two, it splits a given ray of idea into its constituent sub ideas in a 'prismatic' function. While the first is more or less mechanical, the second is more creative, and always a never ending process. Every such fresh spectrum of ideas taunt you to arrive at conclusions and if you seek this option again, it will go on giving you never ending directions and options. Manifestation of this faculty of Reason has helped mankind to take his civilization into the present heights.

As I am actively into meditating on the human faculty of Reason, and in the process of writing my paper on it, I should also mention here that Reason is more or less a SEAT, or a SENSOR of ORDER kept inbuilt in man by nature. Hence it helps man to play and appreciate musical tunes (basically harmony of sound notes) work of art etc .It also compel man to fight injustice.( a form of disorder) It also makes great men to wage revolutions for bringing forth social changes.( compulsion to bring new order)

Will you care to go through the basic two causes of violence depicted in my attached work 'a different story on the origin of establishment' and offer your valued comments? It explains the origin and development of almost all our present day social maladies.. the naked rule of the strong over the less strong, the irrational myth of authority of the establishment, the central role of sycophant middlemen, our tendency of keeping women as items of possession and the permanent wall that separates haves from the have-nots.

This story has a presupposition that man's cosmic urge is to establish and maintain his 'entity'(his BEING) in the course of life. It is the mad urge that every unit of life including plants and animals share with human beings.

The two fundamental type of violence that my meditations have stuck upon are:

1) The oppressor's pre-emptive strike to punish the already oppressed class of men against their attempt to come out free and challenge the already established norms of superiority. The entity, or the BEING of the oppressors have been constituted and defined around such superiority, hence he has no other option but to strike hard and preserve his such entity.

2) From the very moment he has suffered violation of his entity(being)from the hands of the oppressor, it would remain the sole goal in the life of the oppressed to strike back, thus re-gain his lost entity and pride. His only two options are either go neurotic on account of his inability to strike back, or strike till he could annihilate the oppressor.

Unlike the animal species whose concerns and purely biological, man is blessed (or cursed?) to maintain his notional entity as an individual too. Hence unlike in the animal kingdom, man wage even wars for upholding his freedom, besides wars on pure biological causes like food and territory.

While the first kind of violence is actively chosen, the second is purely retaliatory. Oppressor keeps irrational premises about his superiority which can best be attributed to the still active remnant of jungle time primitiveness. Civilization was man's fight to get free from such primitiveness all through. Hence the onus of violence in the society is, without doubt, is with the oppressor, the powerful. The other party is cosmically compelled to retaliate For him it is violence, or the very annihilation of his sense of being!

The relevance of the science of ecology:

During the inception of science, man used it to thoroughly exploit nature and use her resources for improving conditions of life. But today he is compelled to reverse the course.. science of ecology teaches him to look after and preserve his environment if he needs to preserve himself! So we have tiger preserve programmes, forest protection programmes and what not! This new found wisdom is yet to turn its eyes towards the most central of this outlook of wisdom- - -need to preserve the 'other man' to save his society. The fellow-being is the first and the most central item in every one's immediate environment. He is the one to be preserved and looked after first for man to preserve his life, society, country and mankind.

Capitalism advocated the virtue of every man toiling his best to preserve his well being. The other fellow will follow the suit and preserve him self. Fact of competition was established as the naturally set condition for life. While the most successful minority could open factories and business empires, the less successful majority was asked to get transformed into effigies of officers, managers, drivers, workers, clerks and peons. Their entity as unique persons had no takers in the system. Every one was required to convert himself most efficiently as the specialized 'tool'/'component' that he was required to become in the process of running the machinery of business.

Communism as an ideology revolted against this mechanization of man. They wanted one from their class, a worker, to hold the reign of the system of production, and ultimately the machinery of business. In the absence of any different ideology to re-define life and relation between man, communism ended up as state fascism.

Hence, there is a real gap to fill...a new ideology for mankind to run the business of life peacefully. 

Our following blog post gives an out line as to what this new ideology could be: :
Unlike Ayn Rand has branded, it need not be ALTRUISM when a man decide to take care of the other man in the course of doing business of life. It should be simply a 'common sense' decision, derived from plain sense of cause and effect, as evident from the principles of ECOLOGY. When a man, or a group, or the state violate the sense of self of another man, it triggers a massive negative energy. It is similar to dumping garbage anywhere and everywhere, or emitting carbon dioxide irresponsibly to deplete OZONE LAYER. Such irresponsible, primitive actions are definitely detrimental to the very survival of mankind. Man has to first take care the closest item in his environment - - -his fellow man, not out of morality (Altruism) but out of  sense of Reason and common sense.

 A freshly re-invented Democracy can always take care of this rational attitude of man towards the other man, and that of state towards its people and fill up gap between rightist and leftist ideologies, and have a new direction for polity and life.

If such a new ideology do not rise among men in the world, and become a day to day fact of science and common knowledge that every student learn in school, future will again produce many Hitlers and Musolinies to threaten the very survival of mankind one day.

Media is the sole strata in society at present who could realize these fundamentals of polity and life. Once one or two Media leaders like you realize the above historical need of mankind, they can easily create a wave.

With warm love and regards,

Founder Secretary,
Conscience of the society- an NGO that stands for Reason, and re-inventing democracy.