By Patricia Mukhim
The media by definition are a means for disseminating information for public education. Entertainment is a small part of the media component, or so it should be. In performing the major tasks of information and education the media indirectly sets the agenda for public and government action. The April 4th incident (National Awakening Day) observed by the Khasi Students’ Union has triggered a series of debates in this newspaper. As editor, one also surveys other newspapers to benefit from divergent opinions. A recent article carried by an English daily captioned, “Diatribe against the KSU: Conspiracy Partially Answered,” was intended as a counterpoint to the several letters to the editor appearing in this newspaper to voice dissent against the actions of a section of KSU activists on the eventful day. The article castigates this paper for giving voice to individuals who saw the violence of that day as a slur on Khasi society and accuses the paper of ‘manufacturing consent’ a term coined by the famed Leftist intellectual, Noam Chomsky. Chomsky had accused the US Government of taming the media (Fox News), as an alibi to counter Islamic terrorism post the September 11, 2000 outrage.
One of the lessons learnt as a columnist of several years and as now as an editor of a newspaper is that if you swim against the populist ground-swell you are nearly always seen as the agent provocateur. The Khasi milieu hardly promotes dissent. What is oft forgotten is that the Khasi society is a fractured mass of human beings occupying different economic strata. And that matters a lot because it forms peoples’ ideas of what they want from government. To talk of a homogenous voice or aspiration is illusive. The aspiration of a middle class Khasi is different from that of the BPL person. The former aspires to better his prospects; the latter strives to subsist on minimal resources. And this is a harsh reality. So when a student organisation claims that it represents the Khasi Resistance Movement, this needs to be critically questioned. What in the first place is Khasi Resistance Movement? What are we resisting? The article is vocal about protecting our land, our culture, our future. But protection from whom? What sort of land do we intend to protect? Do we care about protecting degraded land that has been defiled by unrestrained mining practices? We have both coal and limestone mines. The former we don’t talk about much because the mine owners are indigenous to the soil. The latter we tear to pieces because we say the benefits of cement manufacturing do not accrue to local people while the environment is degraded. In both cases there is incalculable harm done to the environment. In coal mining a small section is benefitting. So why are Resistance groups silent on one and vocal on the other? This is extremely arbitrary action calls for a scholarly critique.
If there is such a thing as ‘manufacturing consent’ then there is also a counterpoint to this. I would call it ‘manufacturing dissent’ by selectively flagging only those issues that a group chooses to. When a group refrains from critiquing something that is obviously detrimental to the survival of the Khasi people as much as alienation of our land to different means of production is, one is tempted to ask why the ambivalence?
In a newspaper that allows free speech such counter points/criticisms can find space. They would not appear in a newspaper that is so obviously tilted towards a parochial viewpoint. Time was when few dared to call the KSU to account about how it raises its resources and how its top leaders have built their fortunes. Today the young and articulate “real students and scholars,” who may not be members of the KSU are flagging these points. And the KSU as a public body ought to respond with grace, not by bashing the media for allowing such views to be published. The Union does have its set of brave-hearts who claim they are not its members but whose heart beats for the Union. Does a dissenting view against the KSU imply a conspiracy against the Union? Are things only black and white with nothing in between? If some believe that newspapers are conspiring against the Union then what do they have to say about the scores of views on the social networking sites that have condemned the April 4th incident? Could this newspaper have also manufactured their views?
And mind you there are other equally vociferous condemnations of the anti-KSU dissenting views appearing in this newspaper. We have published those as well, except some that have not provided the contact details. Post April 4, 2013 we have a plethora of Facebook accounts which are blatantly promoting a dangerous form of radical parochialism. What sort of consent are they manufacturing by promoting hatred and a call for violence? This is not how democracy functions. Democracy promotes varying viewpoints that must be deliberated until some form of consensus is arrived at. Does the KSU allow such discussions and deliberations or does it co-opt all “Khasis” into its bandwagon? In the past the KSU has prevented other students’ bodies from coming up within college campuses. I recall how such a move was scuttled when one worthy used to be the KSU President. Now why would any organisation prevent individuals from forming their own interest groups? Why the insecurity? Is there a fear that another group might challenge the leadership of the Union? Many students in the past have questioned if the KSU is indeed a students’ body? Or whether their agenda is purely the academic welfare of students of Meghalaya? The article in question, cited earlier has more than answered the question by stating that the KSU is a Khasi Resistance Movement. So what happens to those who do not subscribe to being part of a Resistance Movement during their high school and college days because they cannot afford to, or might want to join it only after they have internalised issues and can make an informed decision, rather than just being led by jingoism?
Democracy requires deliberation for a number of reasons. First, discussing public issues helps citizens to form opinions where they might otherwise have none. Second, it offers organisational leaders better insights into public concerns. Leaders whether of political parties or social organisations must listen to public discourse. Thirdly, public discourse provides a way of getting organisations to place their views in the public domain and justify their views or positions. This helps the views to be sorted between the better ones and the worst.
Granted that having a dialogue within society, especially one as fractured as ours is not easy. But it is also true that without dialogue the views of a group which is influential because of numerous factors get prominence and are endorsed as the views of the entire society. This also is ‘manufacturing consent’ and it has gone on for several decades in our society. Without a public dialogue how does society identify its priorities and needs? Even conceptualising what is a need may require extensive public dialogue and debate. Let us not forget that KSU is an exclusive group seeking to serve the exclusive interests of the Khasi students and not the entire Khasi community. This is fine and every group has the right to serve its interests. But Meghalaya is not the home of the Khasis only. So who represents the rest of the population? Can we just exclude their views as being inconsequential? Is this not the road to totalitarianism?
There are enough newspapers in the State that give vent to the majority views; very few have space for non-populist, contrarian views. A society that thinks is a society that progresses. A thinking society is one that comes up with several perspectives on an issue and is not threatened by a counter-cultural opinion. In fact this is the indication of a strong and resilient society. Invisibility in media can come not just because people are poor. It happens when they do not have the power, or access to power, or because their images are distorted. They could also assume a position of silence to protect themselves from dominant groups. A newspaper that cannot give voice to the marginalised cannot be called a defender of free speech.
The KSU reminds me of the notion of ‘groupthink’ developed by Irving Janis to describe the kind of decision-making that often leads to social blunders, especially those opposing progressive measures such as the railways. Janis believes that organisations susceptible to ‘groupthink’ pressure their members into conformity and create the illusion of unanimity. This is fostered by subtle pressure on members who argue against the group’s stereotypes, illusions and commitments.
It is time for pressure and interest groups to hold themselves to scrutiny and see if they follow a democratic ethos. The media should reflect a rainbow of views and not be pigeon-holed by a dominant voice. If we stray from this mandate we too can be hauled over the coals.