Binodan K D Sarma
Homi Bhabha in his eponymous work Nation and Narration propounded the concept of a nation being composed of multiple narratives. His theory in a very brief summary, among many other things about a nation, is that it is a ‘metaphor’ synthesised from a political thought and literary language’ of any age. Bhabha outlines and decodes multiple literary narratives in his effort to meticulously establish his theory, which makes the piece of work, both, a very exciting and at the same time a daunting piece to read and assimilate. I was acutely reminded of his work because of the state of affairs of the narrative that seems to be shaping our nation lately.
The narrative I am observing is least interesting, yet daunting and very worrying. I say this because the current narrative seems to be in a tearing hurry to change the composite structure of how India, as a nation, is to be perceived and how she should be culturally shaping herself in the future. It reeks of a licensing of creative thought process, much like the licensing act of 1737 in England, which very sadly ended the career of one of the greatest political satirists and playwright, Henry Fielding.
In his work, Bhabha quotes the erstwhile political philosopher Hannah Arendt, and I am drawn to one particular observation made by her, of how the society in a modern nation is “curiously” a “hybrid realm where private interests assume public significance.” This observation, in fact will not come as a surprise to many of us today, where we have hyperventilating news anchors, actresses and political armies ready to comment, shout and troll everything from a death of an actor to how advertisements are corrupting the ‘religious’ fabric of a community.
Bhabha and Hannah made these observations long before we in India saw the influx of debates on such issues. Call it the growing commercialism, capitalism or the onslaught of use and misuse of digital platforms to opine, in the last few years there has been a shift in what our nation’s narrative through these mediums, has been. At the cost of being labeled as ‘secular gangster’ or even an ‘urban naxal,’ I sadly have to say that this narrative through the brigade of these media channels and social media is restrictive, regressive and radical to the extent that I would draw an analogy to a similar phenomenon observed, though in a more violent manner, during the Talibanisation of Afghanistan. Is this a very harsh analogy? Not really. The difference lies only in the fact that the current brigade of narrative is not defined just by a religious ideology but also by a regimented political ambition. Is it being successful? Will it lead to more licensing? From the face of it, the answer is yes. I answer in the affirmative because I saw the last bastion of democratic expression, advertising, fall last week.
I joined advertising fourteen years ago because I saw it as a medium of free will and expression. The romanticisation of the madmen, their creative freedom and arrogance has kept me in the race in this demanding field for the longest period. We are creators. We are the smarter race. We can tell stories that built brands, people loved or hated. We told stories in sixty, thirty and even in measly three seconds. We are unapologetic of our flaws and arrogant of our successes.
In the last fourteen years, I have seen a lot of transition, from sixty second films to three second thumb stoppers, from television commercials to digital content, from celebrities to YouTube stars, but what never changed was the spirit of the industry – being bold. If a story can be told, it should and will be told. We have in these glorious years shown a husband take the wife’s surname, talked of same sex love, shown promiscuity of married women to good smelling neighbours, shown inter-religious harmony, shown third gender equality and even Goddess dressed up in haute coutre.
We consider ourselves as a part of a brave new world and we never were licenced, yet. Our stories were part of the cultural narrative and in its own unique way shaping our nation. We always believe in progression, moving away from the old to a new. We always are about being bolder. But in the last few years the transition and narrative around our professional work also began to change. Being bold came about with caveats. People’s sentiments became more important than an insight. “Will it be safe?” “Great insight, but as a brand we cannot speak about it,” “Not in these times, brother” are some common feedbacks we experienced from brands we serviced. Something had changed. The brands were scared and boldness did not come easy. Revenues were important and so we played it safe too. However occasionally a great story would be published, almost like a burst of sunshine in winter and lift our hopes. The bastion is alive. Good days will come.
The latest Tanishq ad was exactly that and when I first watched it, before the outrage, I smiled and spoke to myself – “Good old madmen. Still can tell a story.” The joy was short lived. The outrage that followed the ad with the trolls, the warnings, the propaganda and debate, leading to the brand withdrawing the ad and thereafter issuing a public apology, shattered my belief in the bastion. It had fallen prey to the narrative that a few wanted us to believe in. A narrative that is shaping intolerance towards anyone who questions a structure that right wing political manifesto is building. I would not be worried of an attempt at the narrative, if it would have remained as an attempt only. The worrying aspect is the mass acceptance of the same.
Nothing is more worrying than this, that a country that boasts of being the largest democracy and secular spirit is now rewriting the foundation of that very narrative, through an online troll army. Nothing is more worrying than the fact that our premier follows the handle of the gentleman who exhorted his online troll army of 1.2 lakh followers to take on Tanishq for the ad. Nothing is more worrying than that in a span of 24 hours, an army of right wing media had distorted facts, created stories, published opinions, shared with millions that the harmless and lovely ad is actually a case of “love Jihad.” Nothing is more worrying than the fact that this episode may drive the last nail into the coffin of the free will creativity that a few motley madmen enjoy in their expression of ideas.
Not long ago, much before this Tanishq incident, a harmless regional ad of edible oil brand for Bengal depicting fish being fried met with the same treatment from a right wing religious group. The angst, similar, disregard for religious emotions. Fish is non-vegetarian and depiction of a goddess frying non-veg food is blasphemy. The result is a similar backlash; the brand issuing an apology and making an edit. Even though the controversy did not attain national debate, the ominous bells had been rung. Just that a few madmen had not heard it yet.
Is this narrative of intolerance and propaganda, across all issues a visible attempt to shape the meaning of our nation to a radical one? Without doubt! So much so that it cannot even be ignored that there is a shameless and meek acceptance of this by thinkers and political analysts across, leave aside the common people. Will this acceptance make us better individuals? I wish I could say that, because no country with a single-minded radical narrative has done anything better than forge a world war that led to mass destruction.
Can we still do something about it? We certainly can. By rejecting the trolls and challenging the perpetrators. By endorsing brands, people and ideologies that make feeble or bold attempts to reject such radical narratives. As professor Timothy Brennan would put it, by writing our own logical bold imaginative construct of a nation that we want to see. This imaginative construct is what I see coming from the last bastion of democracy – advertising. So this is to my friends and colleagues of the industry out there, exhorting them to not let our bastion fall, to continue writing narratives that can shape our nation the way we want to see it. We can take them on. We always have. Amen