Twitter has now gotten very mature with Tweeples who express their anger at mainstream Indian English media journalists using choice adjectives, one of them being “Libtards” (a combination of liberals + retards). This is a standard word used to categorize disconnected, biased reporting. Mainstream media has learned to ignore this and go about their business as usual.

To truly understand the rhetoric of mainstream media, which I call South Delhi journalism, one needs to understand the philosophy of liberalism and examine the discourse created by these journalists in India.

The roots of liberalism can be traced back to the Age of Enlightenment^[1], particularly, to one influential philosopher called John Locke (1632-1704). Liberalism was a political philosophy proposed as a theory of governance. Locke explained that all people are free and equal as opposed to being subjects of a God-ordained monarch. Therefore, governance should be based on a social contract where the ruler(s) protect the rights of citizens to be free, equal and owners of property. If the ruler(s) did not satisfy this contract then the citizens must have the right to replace him/her/them. This was a break away from tradition, hierarchy and religious authority - the social conditions that had defined much of Medieval Europe.

In present times liberalism is an important part of democracy. From this philosophy arises the concepts of freedom of press, free speech, free markets, freedom of religion, civic rights and liberties, equality of all citizens irrespective of race, creed or gender etc.

Liberalism in American Media

Since the English educated Indian journalists subscribe to British and American models of journalism I’m going to examine one of them - liberalism as practiced by American media. American media practices the liberal principle of equality by supporting diversity. That is, different socio-cultural groups are identified and their concerns are discussed as issues of the day. This is known as support of identity politics. In other words, governmental policies, actions and decisions are examined by discussing what they mean for these different socio-cultural groups.

For example, the recent Health Care Bill. When the Bill was proposed American media went to work on who would benefit the most from that bill. They brought out that wealthy Americans would benefit the most and the working class voters would be left out.

Usually groups identified are a combination of race, gender, socio-economic status and religion. Issues are not debated on any universal principle of right and wrong but in terms of who gets affected and why, so that everyone gets a fair treatment at the hands of the ruling power.

Notably, several of these voting blocs - women, racial and ethnic minorities, homosexuals, transgender community - are groups that have been excluded by the Church, historically (in Europe) and today^[2]. To include such marginalized groups is in keeping with the Enlightenment ideals of keeping the Church separate from the State; that is, religious considerations are not allowed to trump human values.

Liberalism In South Delhi Journalism^[3] Is Really Colonialism!

In the Indian scenario, however, applying liberal principles creates jarring notes with the indigenous culture, grown and developed through the perspective of Hinduism as a way of life. Not because Hindu culture is illiberal but because it follows pluralism, where any philosophy is adapted to local cultural norms and practices.

Long before India came into being as a single political entity the culture was naturally pluralistic, thanks to the rich polytheistic traditions that were incubated within the borders of the land. Seekers of every stripe characterized the culture, unified by common goals of seeking liberation from reincarnation. Every religious sect within India has a version of Mukthi, the ultimate liberation. The land has seen enough self-realized masters through the ages, who brought out the principle tenets of this tradition periodically.

 Intolerance Debate As an Example

 In such a land, where institutionalization of religion has been studiously avoided by its wise masters, pluralism, a radical version of diversity, has always been the norm. Cultural differences have long been held as a curiosity at best, never a threat. Tolerance of one another, an unsung practical virtue, is an important factor that historically underpinned the harmony of the peoples. To this end, all walks of life are respected.

 But, in the name of liberalism, South Delhi journalism simply glazes over these glaring facts! Let’s take the example of the “intolerance” issue. A slew of random events were framed as evidence of intolerance in India. A Muslim man beaten to death by a mob in UP on suspicions of eating beef, Gharwapsi (re-conversion of Muslim and Christian converts back to Hinduism), Shiv Sena's impractical suggestion of revoking Muslim votes in a bid to offer a solution to the misuse of Muslims as a vote bank, to name a few^[4].

 One doesn’t have to be a neurologist to figure out that each of these acts is an expression of the anger of the Hindu community. However South Delhi journalists who cried loudest about intolerance never went into the causes of this anger in their reporting of the issue (therefore did not provide a space for a constructive solution). Instead they focused only on the plight of the Muslim community, to shout out to the world with all their media might, that India was becoming an intolerant country, thus negatively affecting global perspectives that shape foreign policy.

 For an approach to be truly liberal both sides need to be heard and respected so that everyone understands the nuances of the debate and the powers that be, can make informed decisions. Instead one saw no discussion of the Hindu side of the issue. Why was the majority Hindu community offended by the minority Muslim community in the first place? The reports don’t provide an answer. If one were to go with portrayal of Hindus as an intolerant group why don’t we see reports of such clashes of Hindus with the Jain community, Sikh community, Buddhist community, Parsi community, the Jewish community, the countless tribal communities that are peppered across the length and breadth of the country?

 Such an attitude is classic British colonialist, where the British masters never cared for the reasons that Indian locals were protesting for; they cared only about acts of violence and sought to put them down with brutal means. South Delhi journalists seem to be faithfully following the footsteps of the erstwhile masters, by demanding tolerance from Hindus, no matter what was being done to them, by crushing their grievances, by calling them intolerant!

 Therefore, what is being peddled in the name of liberalism is actually colonialism!

 Another reason, that South Delhi journalism is not liberalism, is that the socio-economic conditions of the groups on both sides of an issue are almost never discussed. Who is perpetrating the unrest? The educated or uneducated? The wealthy or poor? Who is reacting to the provocation? Educated /uneducated? Wealthy/ poor? No answers!

 There is no social policy concern in their discussions. How can this issue be resolved in a manner that works for both sides? Who are the people who can resolve this issue and what do they need to do? No such nuances in their reporting. To South Delhi journalists there are only two groups in the issue: Hindus and Muslims! And the Hindus are intolerant, how dare they! This approach is more reminiscent of a divide and rule policy of the British than any real liberalism.

 It’s not just the issues of Hindus. There are hundreds of religious sects, not to mention the countless tribal religions that make up the diversity of the Indian culture, that do not get represented in the mainstream media. This is not liberalism.

 South Delhi journalists, in the name of liberalism, give special treatment to two religious groups who have converted to invaders’ religions by force, peer pressure, cynical politicians, economic handouts and Hindu-bashing. If everyone is to be treated free, equal and rightful owners of earned property then it goes without saying that everyone must be respected in the first place. In ignoring the majority Hindu side of all social equations, in ignoring all other groups in India, in ignoring the socio-economic nuances of any issue South Delhi journalists have shown themselves to be perpetrators of a colonial media, not a liberal media!

References:

1. Refer to my previous article on myind.net: “Why Does Hindu Leadership Terrify South Delhi News Rooms?”

2. Media identifies other groups as well, like Veterans for e.g., that are not ignored by the Church

3. In an earlier article I explain that the term is used to refer to a mindset that originates from news rooms in South Delhi, Lutyens Delhi and surrounding areas. This mindset is followed by journalists from other regions as well. http://bit.ly/2oSS3RU

4. Several online news publications and forums have this information.