These days, the news about the statement of Varun Gandhi is in limitlight. There is a lot of criticism is going on that statement. Of course, there is nothing wrong in the those criticism. For instance, Varun said that an Osama is fighting against them. No doubt, that it is worrying about that statement. Saying Osama to every muslims is a gross generalisation and cannnot be justfied with any mean.
But the asepect, that made me more worried, is the approach of a few news channels in India. Let me have an instance. Today, at the when I am writing this blog, a report is being telecasted in the news 24 channels that is about Gandhi.
The channels is very clearly supporting the congress and ignored a lot of facts. At first, the aforsaid channels showed the Varun's statement where he said "agar koi hinduon par haath uthayega to main uske haath kaat doonga" (if anybody will raise hands on Hindus, I shall cut his hands). Now, the channel is saying while comparing Varun and Rahul Gandhi, that one is saying about cutting the hands and other one is saying about joining the hands. Well, talking about cutting the hands of anybody is right or wrong, that may be a subject to debate. But, here a question is bothering my mind is that, what does the channel want to say. Whatever Varun said may definately be said, if we read his statements as a whole. But if we talk, particularly about the said statement then the question arises, if someone raise hands on Hindus, should one not protect himself and keep quiet? If this is not the meaning the channels, then what is the other meaning? This is true that one should be criticised for his or her hateful speech. But intepreting the statement in its own can not be said correct.
The other aspect, on which the channel worked in that report is comparing their mothers - Meneca Gandhi and Sonia Gandhi. On comparing those, the channel made that statement that one (Sonia) renounced the chair of PM, and other (Meneca) is supporting her son blindly. Well, about Meneca Gandhi, I do not have to say anything as I do not have the knowledge about her role in this context. But still, before questioning the nature of Meneca Gandhi the channel forgot her good works. I mentioned her good work, not to mix them up with politics. I only said that, becuase channel is talking about her 'shakshiyat' (personality or in this context 'nature').
But the other main aspect, that surprised me is channels saying 'one renounced her seat of PM'. Most of the people in this nation know, that most of the decisions are not being taken by PM Manmohan Singh. Before taking his most of the suggestion, PM takes after asking Mrs. Sonia. Even in media, you will see Dr. Manmohan rarely as compared to Mrs. Sonia. In the clear launguage, most of the people are aware of the fact, that the government is still running indirectly by Mrs. Sonia?
There may be a few people who may not be agreed with me. But I want to ask a question to those who agree, will you call this act 'renouncing'? Is it greatness of cheating? What was inside Mrs. Sonia's mind when he did not accept the seat, it is difficult to say? But it is for sure, that her renouncing of the PM's seat in still under the doubt of the people.
The channels statements remember me the posters pasted on the different walls on ways, on which her act was claimed as a 'balidaan' (sacrifice). I am really unable to understand, what is the difference between those posters that were pasted for the purpose of party propoganda and the report shown on the channel. Is that channel agent of that party? If not, then why the channels is thinking the public of India fool enough, that cannot understand the facts itself?
This is true, that media has the responsibility to aware the people. But here some of the facts, that I am leaving for the readers to think about? According to channel, Varun left his family's thinking about secularism and joined BJP and accepted its communal ideology. There may be some people, who may think that BJP is communal. But who gave this authoriety to the channels in the days of elections, to declare one party secular and other communal? Some people can say it 'right to expression'. But if that right is used in such biased way, then what should be told to that, decide yourself. The channel claims repeatedly "khabar ho jaisi, hum dikhaen use vaisi". Analyse it yourself.