Media, considered as the fourth pillar of democracy in popular discourse, has the responsibility of informing the citizenry. Being put in the category of pillars that form the base of, and sustain, the big building of democracy, automatically reflects the pivotal role that it needs to play in an egalitarian society. The difference is just that it does not form part of the troika of Montesquieu’s theory of the separation of powers that he had put forth for preventing any government from being despotic, thereby not belonging to the domain of ‘State’ in its entirety. As most of the media work outside the clutches of the State, very often we see the instances of the government’s attempt to put the freedom of the media into peril, thus having a chilling effect on it. This is done in order to deny the public of right to receive diversity of expression. But, can it be said that diversity of expression only functions in a pro-State/ anti-State binary in media content? The answer is ‘No’. Diversity of expression is also echoed from the varied content that represent different sections of the society, and therefore, the variability in the content-producers that represent the media becomes fundamental to its democratisation.
Diversity of expression is also echoed from the varied content that represent different sections of the society, and therefore, the variability in the content-producers that represent the media becomes fundamental to its democratisation.
In this context, it becomes imperative to ask, who all constitute the Indian media? Does it reflect different sections of the Indian society in terms of representation? What if this fourth pillar of democracy itself denies the basic principles of freedom of expression and egalitarianism for which it fights everyday? But, how can such undemocratic behavioral pattern of the media be recognised? These and plethora of other similarly situated questions remind me of the article that I have read recently. The article has brought into light the issue of newsroom diversity, and has argued that the Indian media space, from the journalism institutes to the newsrooms, is appallingly dominated by the so-called upper-castes, with Brahmins in majority and Dalits a rare feature.
These numbers, that may be similar in other journalism institutes, mirror how and why Indian media has been absent of personnel from different caste background, and ultimately, why a homogenous social background seems running through the anchors, editors and reporters of the Indian media. This flouts the principles of diversity, pluralism and equality in the media and reminds of Professor Steven Barnett,who, while writing on concentration of media ownership and monopolies, argues “…concentration of media ownership within too few hands contradicts the basic tenets of democracy, threatening diversity of expression and risking autocratic control of communicative spaces.” Though, he has referred to the economic ownership, an analogy can be drawn to the ‘social’ ownership as well. The problem is not only restricted to poverty or linguism. It is casteism that plays a protagonist’s role in perpetuating this systemic bias. A resounding example can be the incident of a Dalit reporter YashicaDutt, speaking of her Dalit identity publicly, in the aftermath of Vemula’s death, which she had concealed earlier.
It is casteism that plays a protagonist’s role in perpetuating this systemic bias. A resounding example can be the incident of a Dalit reporter YashicaDutt, speaking of her Dalit identity publicly, in the aftermath of Vemula’s death, which she had concealed earlier.
The insignificance of the issue can also be traced from a speech delivered by Justice (retired) MarkandeyKatju, the then Chairman of the Press Council of India, at a get-together with media-persons. Signaling his inability to speak of the plethora of defects with which the India media is marred with, the four defects that he spoke about could not give enough importance to the newsroom diversity. Even though, he suggested ‘democratic way’ as one of the two ways to rectify these defects, and asked the Indian media to help society by attacking feudal ideas of casteism and communalism, he could not, sadly, see the undemocratic and casteist newsroom homogeneity. One can contend that these are the reasons why alternative news websites like Round Table India, Adivasi Resurgence,Kashmir Reader etc. have come up. These websites have put the marginalized people in the positions of writers, editors and reporters. This has enhanced the covering of news on Dalits, Adivasis and Kashmiris even in mainstream media, which was a rare phenomenon earlier.
Undoubtedly, there have been superb works and reports by Brahmin scholars, filmmakers and journalists, but the continuity of systemic exclusion in their names needs to be done away with. Drawing an analogy, one can argue that a lawyer may present a victim’s suffering brilliantly, but the presentation of such suffering by victim herself will always be different and unique for the very fact that positionality does matter. In light of all this, it would be really interesting to see a caste and community based survey of the Indian media personnel to know how democratic and egalitarian it has been. Though, this might result in various diatribes from upper-caste brahmanical people about attempt to destroying meritocracy, but it would act as a mirror to the diversity deficit Indian media suffers with. Lastly, as Prof. Kancha Illaiah Shepherd has argued, this should not be considered merely as an issue of struggle for identity, rather it is about transformative, political and ideological issues, and above all the democratisation of the Indian media, for it is not the end only that matters, but the means too.
Author: Shailesh Kumar is a law graduate from CNLU, Patna. He has pursued LL.M. from NALSAR, Hyderabad, and M.Phil. from Centre for the Study of Law and Governance, JNU, New Delhi.
