In the recent years India has seen its English TV media changing after Arnab Goswami has begun to rock. That is indeed a good indication. Holding the nationalism high in reporting should not be a blasphemous gesture by English news channels, Goswami has proven it and set a new standard.
Indian journalism should have a national constituency. The journalism has its national constituency in all geographies around the world, even in the ultra liberal America and progressive Europe. This means journalism anywhere in the world is national chauvinistic. Even the so called global media platforms reserve their first interest for the country they trace their root from.
Be it liberal or controlled state, all are equal in this regard. There may be a difference in ownership pattern, but constituency is the same – the very physical boundary of the concept called state.
In India, however, that is absent because we still seemingly enjoy the coziness the colonial shell. That may be the reason, the outstanding journalists like Arnab Goswami, Rajajt Sharma, Sudhir Choudhary Rahul Shivashankar, Navika Kumar, etc are different from those who ruled the roost at one point in time. They are desirable examples of the time that India needs. Their approach in total is a prototype of what is in store for Indian media. India is changing now.
In India, hitherto, such gesture has been a taboo mainly because of our complicated consciousness about what others would think about our “narrow-mindedness”. At one point of time, nationalism was regarded narrow-minded or affiliated to certain ideological segments. That was nothing less than a psychological snobbery they were immersed in. That initially had brought along with it some resistance. Still some intellectuals wrongly believe, nationalism is parochial, because they don’t mind our constituency or are unwilling to subscribe to the approach of nationalists. In the process nationalism is misinterpreted.
When Arnab Goswami used to speak out his mind without any artificial softener or fabricated decency, that sounded strange, or rather rude, though that was perfectly fine. Nevertheless, that was realistic. But for some such gesture was unacceptable.
When he declares himself that his platform is an absolute Indian media platform anything that hurts the conscience of India would naturally be retaliated with worst usable words. Arnab would always say his platform was not open for abusing India even while being a “guest” of the Indian media. Even if the guest comes from a hostile country, we should not stop ranting our protest on a premonition that the “guest” might be unhappy. The “guest” should not find a chance to abuse us. The Pakistani – Babar Khadri, once had a choice to leave on his own, if he found Arnab’s language unacceptable or unceremonious before being thrown out unceremoniously.
An average Indian national media would hardly indulge into a habit of abusing Pakistan frequently but Pakistan media would. Chinese media would do abusing and threatening India simultaneously. No Indian would respond to any Pak media so ferociously as Pakistanis do. Let us call it our civility for our hollow regalia, which often becomes abhorrent. By being civilised we cannot get everyone behave with civil sense. You need a way to convince them at least at one juncture.
Our tolerance in the past made Pakistanis call us DOGS with a sure anticipation that we don’t call them back pigs. Had they realised India also would call them so, they wouldn’t have abused us so. Similarly, when terrorists plan to strike India or Indian interest anywhere in the world they will think twice and take a decision with a sense. On the other side, it is the proud citizen of the country who will weigh the acceptance of their national media but not terrorists or antagonists of the country.
There were times India had been losers in every international arena. Our media did not show responsibilities to talk harshly against what was hurting the nation. We had soft-approach governments. Now these have become history, thanks to the nationalist media and resolute government.
