"Little air to breath.."

So often it seems that the air has thinned...
Thinned; and robbed of its flavor..
Why? Didn't you feel the same..

The breathing was easy in littlehood...
very happily would the wind carry..
innocuous jokes, friendly bantering..
the fragrance of protection was there though unadmired...

Now, there is a miasma of offense..
less and less words have thinned the air..
there can be so waves as such..
no 'expression' to put my death-wish,
I would die, without choice..
In : "little air to breath."

"The widening gap of media and journalism.."

We now feel so much mellowed over the conversations of media being a 'corporate lolly.' So much so that the phrase seem to be deserving of the most reflective cliches of the nation's psyche. The issues that erupt ever now and then like the pesky wayward weeds after the moisture of weather, take on media as a prominently growing platform for paid bits with extra effort in moolah to smarmily call them 'news.'

This has been accepted by the t.v journalists --while some also have the extra smugness calling them as 'video journalists'--themselves which is an etching thing for this pillar of democracy. It is a shame that journalists themselves talk in dismissiveness of each other as such a print journalist would call a t.v anchor as some coiffed 'cutesy' (mirthfully applicable for both men and women) with affected glibness while the t.v journalists poking fun at the print journalists calling them as hacks or ill-informed or less-resourced. In the mire, if anything is degraded it is the institution itself and if anybody innocently laughs, it would be the people.

Often, every media house of any nature print, radio or t.v would try to raise the bar for itself asking for a collective journalistic effort to 'introspect.' There have been those who have rebuffed each other making allusive remarks or gesturing subtly about the channels like India T.V, Zee News and the likes where the flavor is sensationalism. The point of mootness would be to reflect that while making such efforts to denigrate their lesser counterparts, the mainstream media dilutes itself in terms of credulity, posturing like a femme. IT IS RIDICULOUS. The audience of good channels would always know why they are 'good' and what happens at other panels. They need not be reminded certainly not that it be informed to them, as they know it much better having the special privileged (verily so without any bias of sort) to sit on couch with an open mind and zap on the remote. Why the stooping then? Barkhas and Deeps, discard these petty allusions. (You are the most we have so far and as per the referendum figures, if there are any, the standards need be improved by grave margins.)

For Barkhas and Deeps: The audience is always wise to know what would suit them or their appetite for news. Nobody would hog India TV when there is an attack on the national security and people expectably wish to know about the real time ruckus happening. You can not impress them by idiotic posturing and cheaply sly references as if you have dodged the lesser to make a point to the intelligent. That is so egotistic and best be avoided. There should be concerns about how--given that there is a controlling monarch with deep pockets from where would outpour the funds for running of channel-- to tell the truth convincingly in plain words. The boldness would be intimidating, as it has always been in the history, for those who would vulgarly wish to have a little reign over it. They won't have the same credibility without you and would not in any case will to loose the face they have so laboriously built. The advertising rates for popular t.v shows on news media is an ample proof that the marketers are more wiser than you or your bosses. Please would some wads of relief into this widening gap of accidental media and injured journalism.

"Sachin--an absolute fit for Rajya Sabha"

It is a moot point to think whether Sachin should have been nominated for the Upper House of Rajya Sabha. There are so many disputations about it: whether it means a prelude to his fizzling out career or an indication of it, whether this would divest of the achievements he had made on the field of cricket in any way, whether he really should be opting it despite the nomination, will he be able to attend it, while attending performing in it and off it on the field and so on. I personally feel that it can only amount to some good being done for the nation.

Before defending, first of all it is the privileged discretion of the President of India to nominate certain members to the Rajya Sabha. The nominees in the past have been the prominent people from all walks of life be it sports, drama, films, theater, media etc and there can be no cribbing on whether Sachin should have been appointed or not. This question dies because it didn't matter whether he willed it or not, the privilege was with the President and she used it, wisely as I feel.

Important point is that this would in a good extent mild the cynicism that every Indian heart reserves for the Politicians. Sachin would--tell me if I am just wishing--at least have many people take serious note of politics if not policy framing and the importance it behooves for the general good of the nation. This is the point (the only point in fact) which I wished to argue before picking on the keyboard was to begin. May be there are those who would seek to watch the debate in Rajya Sabha for the mere intention to see their idol (if not God) sitting among the whites in the house. No need to say there would be some respect for the institutional framework at that moment even though the benches had been willing for the same since decades now. And of course, there would be the cameras standing outside the house asking (I know each and every time) the opinion of Sachin Tendulkar about the course of the debate or decision that might have undergone therein. I am sure that Sachin's point, however amateurish that might be, would be in sync with millions around. His presence would make the upper house all the more glamorous. So far I have totally discarded Sachin's involvement in any special way for the policy making. Those who say that Sachin would be a certified dud at that have no reason to make such wild assumptions--at least not until they have seen him perform at this field, too.

Then the media of course would be paying too much attention to the episodic bouts of Rajya Sabha also. They have always stayed away form the old walls of the Houses, but I believe that they would at least have one cameraman and a reporter from each channel to cover up his visit. At times,, there is every chance to believe that subsidiary matters of importance will also get the glare and if God wills, also to the ears and minds of listeners. Seeing him as a 'politician' others --particularly the youth--might have the ambition for the positions of the Parliament. At least those who do not want to wear the white kurta would have to think twice before they start with their cynicism, abstention, indifference, ignorance, or repugnance because a great sportsman has chose the same path. Incurable optimistic that I am, I would even delve in a special thought to imagine Sachin's love for this new game for I am sure that if anybody can turn out his love so brilliantly as to make a name in the field of that 'love', it would be Sachin. So I hope that he LOVES politics a lot to make a good score.

"Social Media-a cog of wheel of Common World Culture"

Social Media is just irresistible. It is uncontrollable, unbriddled any force whatsoever known to man. This is the big beast that has been the subject of maximum media and consumer focus since the onset of this millennium. Laws of different countries have tried to wet their hands trying to make a sense of this beast in their legal framework but there has been a recorded 'mockery' of all such attempts. We are projected to several debates day in and out about the relevance irrelevance of it, or advantages disadvantages of it, but even the brilliant of intellectuals --including the mavens in the field--have raised up their hands in defeat. Time has come to not see it as some influence coming from outside. Here is what I call it: Common Culture of the World.

It would be more wise if we start seeing it as different from what out senses have so far perceived. To classify it as just Facebook, Twitter, Youtube would be a big fallacy and any attempt in doing that would defy the assertions made so far because then social media could be curbed by blocking all of similar sites. That a new virtual pulpit is created at the click of the mouse is an indication of its influence and is often magnified by accouterments by the effects of graphics or background scores etc. The name 'social media' itself has an allusion to the society and in a loose way it is the society's media. But here is the catch: there is no definition for this society, no culture to which its mores might belong and no confined reach either geographically or demographically. It is because it belongs to the world--that the whole 'world' is the society and culture, too, is that which belongs to the world.

One update in a tiny basement is available to the remotest corner almost instantly. Communities, groups and channels are more integrated and conversant than even the actual pieces. There is no applicable law because there is no territorial jurisprudence that may apply to it. If China bans a site that doesn't mean that the computers in China can't access it--may be the proxy satellites from other nations can direct the site packets in China. It is absurd to even think about blocking or curbing the nutrition of it. Block the computers and you would have mobiles with increased convenience of use and to begin heralding again. There can't be a terminus to it, accept that first. It is like this world culture will not in any case have any Book of Indoctrination of any kind. It is not that I am giving social media the holier colors of any religion, what I mean to say is that if you want to treat it as a religion don't go looking for any SCRIPTURE for it.

Everybody can be the contributor in this sea of information. Eqypt's clashes, China's fervors have shown it all. It is high time that we realize its importance in our life; also not to miss the potential dangers. (I won't go into any of these) It is high time that we are not confused by its force--what it has done and is much more capable to do more, influence ranging and transcending boundaries, oceans and all symbolism of shackles/hindrances. It is faster than the fire, mightier than the mountains, awakened all the time round the clock, in rain ruin spring. It is a culture of very unique kind and is bound to participate more in our lives, important decisions. Its bits and bytes are little memes that tend to define its mores and commandments though they can't be packed and tagged. Opinions and counter-opinions sail in the sea and everyone can sail along with them or may wish to paraglide. The choice is all yours as it is full of choices. Respect it. Expect more. (If you name it religion, you can't not be an atheist which probably is the only injunction that would inevitable come along.)

"The Political sleaze"

That Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the Congress Party's spokesman was shown in an alleged sex-tape with a female lawyer possibly, as the rumors ripe each second, asking for a helping hand in the judgeship. The shrewd minister, known for his quick wit and intelligence has desperately tried all he could--from Court's injunction against media showing, discussing and inviting panels on the issue of the tape--to put curbs on the dissemination of the video. But the internet forums, particularly the Youtube, has proven to be too subtle and nubile to defeat the minister on his own turf by defying all the legal injunctions.

Several versions of video have gone viral and removed after many hits only to be uploaded again somewhere else---the bosom of internet allowing all the accoutrement for it to be done. I am sure that Mr. Singhvi has never had worst bursts of sleeplessness all his years including that of the heavy responsibility of preparing the mammoth 'Lokpal' bill. 

Coming to the larger question: Should a person be allowed to do such escapades? There is no obligation of any kind that might have barred him for doing so and he, being a lawyer, should have known it better. But the issue is not just what was acceptable and rightfully confined to any individual in his private space. Even if the girl was a harlot, Singhvi would have blabbered the arguments of 'mutual consent.' Here is the drift: Should a politician be allowed that?--and there is no easy affirmative for this. Because a politician has to be seen with an image that he might have drawn from along the people and then build upon that. It is a commonplace thing for politicians to appeal to the emotions of the people. India, largely a conservative society, expect its politicians to behave being a part of social mores which form a social fabric that is generally accepted by all and sundry. Adultery and such sexcapades are sure to bring bad light and is tantamount to play with the sensibilities of people. Manu Singhvi, himself has made similar arguments in several debates he had participated in--about the BJP members watching porn in assembly to begin with. (The scenario would come over its heels in Singhvi's case for he is alleged to indulge in sexual gratifications inside the chambers of Supreme Court which is an institution touted more than any other)

The argument of hypocrisy cripples Manu Sighvi and the Congress even more. It was observed by some of the writers that Congress had not overly reacted to BJP MLAs watching porn because it had always known the likeminds which Congress itself could never afford to unhave totally. There was always a looming fear that some Congressmen might be caught in similar objectionable conduct soon enough if shouted more and that is exactly what has happened. (a Tweet was so much to say that it is a revenge of BJP upon Congress and the game may either discontinue in the wake of mutual loss or may advance in case one party is more to gain than the other) This is also corroborative of the claim made by the uploader of the video that there might be more such confiding and disclosure to follow.

It would be interesting to see how media--largely being pro-Congress--would react once the issue is raddled enough to be discussed on the panels of the television. I can't say much about the new sex-perks coming up, but there is little or no doubt about the following: It is Mr. Singhvi and not any concocted baldy bobbing his head wantonly, that media has again showed that it is biased enough to let the consumer not to be undoubtful and lastly the fact that all politicians would lose their presumptive moral points, if any such points had been there. The statement of Om Puri in his next dissertation from pulpits might be: "Ye Sare Neta Ladki-baaz hai, Sale."

"Little Satans..."

Here the mind isn't free...
Very so dies the ambition of a great poet.

Here the rights of Freedom are in shackles...
Prisoning thus, the idea of that brave stout soldier.

Neither is Love here, nor is Hate impure...
Stale lies the confused audience of the people.

Death dances to multi-tunes...
Life writes for itself an impressive elegy.

What God can we all claim...
When we are in our deep hearts, little Satans.

"The craze of DIDI Mamata"

Trinamool Congress in under fire again for asking Facebook US to drop down the content that see DIDI in defamation. This has been building on the bad after a series of episodes --from calling rape as a political weapon adopted by CPM to imprison the professor of Microbiology in a supposedly false implication--and are likely to see more in the future.

The defenders of DIDI have proclaimed several arguments ranging from the in-cognizance of Mamata about most of these frame-ups to attempting watering down the fire of whole issue by merely recalling Mamata's launch of cartoonistic books a few years ago. The point is if she is the real defender of faith then she should have come to the rescue of those who are made to bear the brunt of her violently smug supporters. She is not only seen making staunch statements from the podiums but also, while doing so, is fanning more fire with her comments--referring to the word 'cyber' as one of the critical internal security bug. Instead, what would be more awe-aspiring (and I mean it in literal sense) is the use or preparation to use the official hand of State machinery to actually curb the 'post' button on blogging, or 'update' on Facebook. (That Indian IT still maintains a Blasphemy rule is a topic the threads of which would be spun some other time.)

"She is a woman in the political space that had never seen woman to the stature she has acquired with her hard work at grassroots," said one of her party member. Does this help when we reflect the kind of insensitivity she displayed while making off the cuff comments about the rape of a girl tagging it as CPM gimmick to defame her and her government. So often has she herself and her supporters made a similar point that to anyone out of the purview of Bengal (or even in Bengal) there is a remoteness being observed of the TMC and the people of West Bengal as if the former is some rigid teacher who is hell bent to doom the students in their exam while the teacher herself is morosely claiming the 'guard nature' as otherwise.

The right to protest is a part of free speech(ah! the totemic freedom !) in India. What lays out the irony in wide is when it is adjudged that Mamata herself had used her free-speech as a mean and measure of protest for several years. In a minimal effect, if all the overhaul of 'red' can be narrowed down, it could be done in allowance of speechifying and dissertations of Mamata from all across the West Bengal--under lights, amidst mud or while stalled in gunk; and as if in a converse, she took no time to stop such practices as soon as the first hand in protest raises. Similarly, when Mamata was cribbing in the shelter of her aggressively pacing sari toward Delhi about the row over the issue of Federal transgressing in the power realm of the State in case of Wal-mart and recently about NCTC, isn't that appear to be in accordance with her attitude now.

About her comments that the 'mind' should be applied to something meaningful, one can easily counter that by saying that when an artist uses his freedom to scribble and doodle, it is easily his best of mind. What can rather be mystifying would be to see a state Chief Minsiter unnecessarily applying her mind and experiencing anguishes over these petty things.

Facebook is a platform that allows a certain steps to be followed if one wishes to register a complaint--say, for the sake of argument--against anybody bent to defame, use libel against any user. But what the hell has it anything to do with State Government which--if it wishes to complain--need to have a Facebook account and then register a request against anyone who writes slanderous things on its timeline. It is almost absurd to watch a State Government picking up arms against the plethora of Facebook users in a puerile way of expressing peeve.

A positive thing that has emerged is the discussion about 'sense of humor' 'thick-thin skinned debate' 'tolerance intolerance'--all of which are much more vibrant than what we have recently seen because of the personalization of these through the epic figure of DIDI. It is suddenly very much easy to relate to all these discussions in a serious yet humor-sustaining way. And secondly, the TMC speakers won't be able to hog too much of the camera light as they had done for the past few months almost behaving like a small autocratic fangers for the others particularly the Central Government. It was so unfortunate that there was almost a narrative being established via the constant media bickering that if anyone could have the cojones to snap Center at its heels, it was Mamata and her TMC. No more of that hot air in the flared up nostrils.

"A girl that ought to be......"

There is a repetition of circle of a self-pity every time a baby girl is found discarded or in more unpopular events abjectly killed. I have tried in my attempts to penetrate the psychology of such a cranium that allows for the commissioning of such a horrible act and each time I find that it is impossible to do so. The mind can't act in such a situation as when a parent has to decide whether he or she should bring up the baby girl. But still the act is performed perhaps remorsefully. This is precisely because the mind is already equipped with the idea of a killing. That one must kill the baby if it turns out a girl this time, too--the mind is prepared in advance and has scenes of administrating the act. Most of the times it is the dumping of the new born at a forlorn place like bus stand, pan wala's shop, empty bench at a station or in the pipe of a sewer being dug out by the city municipality.

The psychology, though, seem to show that in the cases when the baby girl is not murdered or thrown into flowing water, and is found in a miserable condition nonetheless, there can be assumed (or possibly assumed) an inclination of the parent that the girl be found by some one sooner enough to keep the life beats thumping. A tragic case in Punjab a few years ago saw a man who had dumped his third consecutive daughter in the pit of a sewerage and instead of running away, stayed in he safe shelter of the dark a few yards away beside a trolley. An elderly woman who was strolling on the roof of a nearby house saw the man approaching the pit every few minutes as if to ascertain that the baby was still alive. The cruel father was waiting for someone to hear the cries of the baby and pick her up to fetch her to a hospital. This, as can be assumed, would have given him a satisfaction that he was not that much guilty (perhaps) and that his girl didn't die.

What interests me is the state of mind of such a man. This is because if we can push the campaign of social education slightly more we can easily reach the verge to not let such cases happen. The man didn't know which side of mind to choose at that crucial time, struggling constantly between the reluctant desire to leave the child there in the dump and pick her up in the same swaddle he might have had brought. Had there been more awareness it would-or I think--have been easy for him to choose the moral option available in the exigently imploding mind of his.

This 'A girl that must not be...' fixation should be uprooted from such psychic minds. The doctors must have to know the history of the visiting couples. It is that often the clinics for the second or subsequent deliveries for a couple is same and in such case it is imperative for the gynecologist or who help in delivery of a mother to be wary of the outcome. A mere hint in the eye of the father (or also that of mother) I believe is enough to be dubious about the possible warps that may follow. So it is the responsibility of the doctors too that they be alert in such case.

I would end by saying that the same man who dumped his daughter in the sewer pit is a proud father of three daughters and a boy. He was identified by that lady strolling on the roof and the baby (picked by a rickshawala) was timely saved after being put on respirators. The man was not allowed to have possession of the baby for two months and he had to convince the local bodies after shaming himself and his wife in front of the local civic body that dealt with such cases. He and his wife were educated about the wretchedness of such acts of killing and they, I believe, would soon start saying themselves as proud parents of their off-springs.

"Decadence of Indoctrination"

The whizzing though of a child under the trauma of 'indoctrination' of any kind is a much pathetic thought. It corrodes the soul for a few minutes to think that the innocent is made to bear all the spikes of else's rudimentariness--all under the beatific will of parents. What a shame on the soft society to allow that!

Children should be free assimilators at all fronts. You can't start their education with concepts of indoctrination which has no scientific validity of any kind. It is ridiculous to impose your own hard fancy over your child. The whole mechanism forces a picture of a bud being pressurized to develop into a particular kind of flower. Such a thought is morally corrupt by any measure of mores. 

"A dream which showcases a society free of formulations of any kind, is a dream worth a nap."

The cribber 'Javed Akhtar'

I have had great respect for this prolific poet cum lyricist. He is a brilliant muslim and epitome of boldness and sometimes also of good thought. But I was surprised at his rather parochial attitude towards Shahrukh's so called 'detention' at one of the lesser known airports in the state of New York. He was--not to mince words--stupid on the topic as I heard him filibustering.

Here is the thing: While Javed clearly had the 'elite' argument first, he cleverly shifted his argument toward 'immediacy of search' argument. Expanding on this: Javed said in his first few liens that Shahruk should not have been detained because of his superstar status because (please read'because' in conjunction) to have him known would have been an easy task, just a click of button away for the security professional. Point fine taken. But over his penultimate lines, he shifts (because there was a realization that he had bickered more for 'VVIP' treatment for elite, known, famous Indian VVIPs) so much so as to call the whole matter a simple element of 'poor web search.'

Let me be the security guy who undertook the search or frisk: I checked at the computer who Shahrukh is. I can't go by what is written on the wiki pages or other articles by media. Does it in any way mean that I should discontinue my further interrogation because I had the initial doubt for him. Let me even drag 'Khan' into this for which I would say that, very unfortunately, we have to admit that there is a instinctive bias against Muslims among the American security and the bias extends towards other South Asians (India, Pakistan etc) Can we do anything to eliminate that bias. No! Also, we have to go by the track record of U.S security after the 9/11 attacks as they have made their borders very secure, to which they,as a soverign nation, have right to do so.

Also, it is important to understand how the system of police in a nation works. The American officers are often targeted to have 'names' for each kind of criminal they seek for. Terrorists of different religion have been given code names of all kinds. Policemen are trained in such a way as to be extra precautious with certain sir-names. All these and many other so called 'biases' are on the record as the American security agencies are in no way ashamed of. Call them whatever you want: Racists, Hypochodnriacs or whatever--the thing is they have every right to be whatever they have chosen for themselves. The matter be left with them.

We, on the other hand, must choose not to pick on the baseless comments from a great writer. (May be in a better imaginative mood if he writes about patriotism centered for the nation he could understand.) We must introspect ourselves and see where we lack. We can have similar system as theirs' and subject their citizens to selfsame checks and frisking. While in this case, we have a very bad track record of Mumbai attacks, sea0side criminals form international waters, loopholes in the homeland security, corruption and breaches in the security covers, we can't just shrug off our responsibilty by simply trying or seeming to try dictating lessons to a 'safe' nation.To offer a food for thought, imagine India adopting security checks so stringent that nobody is allowed to pass by without frisking despite that it takes an extra half an hour from the traveler's life on that day, and brings about a change that all the intruders are caught at the security lines, leading to no attacks on our people and in the wake assuring a safety for the sons of soil--I personally would not mind such a stringent system at the cost of losing that half an hour and instead gaining a precious life of a soldier, child or a commoner.

PS: For Javed: write a poem mocking the Indian system of security instead and quill a few lines in solidarity to those who lost their innocent lives; and I would keep loving you and your work.

Let us play 'India Pakistan"

We have to make the title as a game to be played by the politicians and media and let the people see from grandstands the on-goings. The game can be such that there are no rules expect that the diplomats should keep on visiting on each side so to keep their stance in the game. The discussions and talks must continue and continue aggressively if India and Pakistan wants to improve their relations.

Ideally, it is the responsibility of state on either side to cater to the notion of their public at large. And there are no guesses about what the common people --the illustrious Indians and Pakistanis--think about the coda of relationships as they should be. Peace is an easy word for both and it has to stay so in the taste too. The media rampage since 2000s have help the citizens to better understanding the conduct of their politicians qua the relationship between the two nations. To understand this, it must be grasped that relationship has its essence in the people to people complacence, the idea of similarity in culture and ethics, religiosity, quotidian tasks and also, the reactionary attitudes towards big mot juste like Corruption, Governance, War to name few.

Asif Zardari is visiting India. Media blares in resonance with panelists as to what should be the motive and what can be drawn out of the whole visit. So far there are many unconvincing opinions. The problem with such a scenario--where the media talks big with like minded opinion establishers-- is that common people doesn't gain much out of that as they are unable to grasp many of these terms--4 point solution, 9 point solutions, water treaties, judicial commission visits, 26/11 issue and its seemingly long trail. It is very unfair that they are made to feel like that because eventually everything that is discussed between the visiting and hosting parties has to do with the people of both nations. And what is important is to convey a sense of subtle sureness that the rounds of discussions every few months would at least be helpful in limiting the gap of communication between both the nations. That it is important to let the media talk about that and do that more often, so often that they end up discussing all the possibilities impossibilities that can come out of such talks. That it would leave no space for 'war' in that case. That people like Hafeez Sayeed or Geelani would find their heads muddled and confounded by such open conversation encouraged by often visits. That though the solutions to complex problems may never seem easy and if any has to happen behind close curtains, still there would always be a proponent belief that the solutions may happen any time in such a cordial atmosphere.

Thus, both nations and particularly the citizens have to make this whole give-and-take, visiting hosting as a game. The creative citizenry, I am sure, would find ways to even factor in the music, movies, cricket in the same. The sharing must seem a bliss. The internet and media can be influential proponents in the whole process. So I would like to just conclude that since every person--child, young and old--is a participant by default, there is but wiseness to keep playing the game and getting better at it.  

Media can pester the polity to any length it may wish

It is a common argument made against media that it always try to put words into the mouths of those personalities who are interviewed. Most of the time, it must be confessed, that the efforts are deliberate and look inquisitive, especially with the prominent members of the government or for that matter, even the opposition. What is necessary is to note that the media is a recognized body by the Constitution, Government and even the Judiciary to attain such a role if that allows it to draw info in the pursuance of larger truth. All the time media has dealt with half-truths and cajoling, comforting statements; it is the high time --since there are a shine of good journalists available--that the polity be pressed to a larger extent.

First: those who crib at media being iconoclastic, eloquent should be ashamed of such accusation. The ministers must out-smart media as it should be expected on such grounds of speechifying, dissertation or eloquence. The media acts as a votary of the common billions and they are under tremendous pressure themselves in their approach towards the scrabbling of truth out of deep hearts and minds.

Second: even the politicians or ministers have the common sense as to which media is relevant and which is yellow sphere. They always have the option to put off the requests of those who sensationalize or don't have the audience who can be nationally serious and concerning. But the contemporary times allow such media flair to exist and exist brilliantly where if the spokesmen of one party aren't coming to defend themselves, the spokesmen of the opposition would gobble all the time against the government---a fete which media can only but enjoy along with the viewers. So, the onus is always on the existing ministries to come to the channels (or panels) that matter and issue a defensive. This is a good sign and will only help in improving system--making it more accountable and transparent if any--and will do a great service to the commoner on the street by allowing him to participate by mere gesture of listening. (though they can always move to the media grounds and make comments or ask questions.)

Third: Many a faces of the party politics have been surfaced bare by the strength of media. Media may go overboard but it is one such institution that can admissibly do so without much harm. The reason for which would be a lopsided side the media has in the initial phases of any inquiry or investigation. When politicians themselves plunge to use lies of mammoth sizes, they can't blame media to concoct such questions which disrepute them or their party. They can't expect the same style of functioning from media, which doesn't even have such. Instead, they must present themselves, through their spokesmen or otherwise, and their ingenuous response on any matter as is being asked to. They can choose not to answer and dodge if they want. It will only ensure the audience who is the lucky lot after years to see the simultaneous jousting live between the government and the opposition and thus are able to understand many crafty angles to each discourse.

It is therefore important that the every participating side has such spokesmen who speak articulate, have strengths of eloquence and are intelligent. So far, this is in fact the case at least with Congress, BJP, BJD. I hope this continues and such shrewd tactics as to muzzle the media by means unconstitutional on mere ground that it pinches more and more, are not going to serve any purpose. The government may try to opt such means but only if the light is brought out to them that tomorrow they vacate the treasury benches as the voter may wish so and in that case their voice perhaps would be resounded by the same media on similar occasions. The biggest solace for me, personally, is that the commoner enjoys a lot: this flow of info, bickering, intelligent questions and responses-- all validating the tag of 'argumentative Indian' in a glittering way.