The Sorry State of Ethics And The Ethics of Sorry

Human mind is generally a cornucopia of thoughts. How focused they are, how random they are, depends a lot on the individual and often tells us a lot about the individual itself. My mind, is no different. At least, I like to believe that is the case..! It is in this myriad of complex mesh (or mess??) that some thoughts on ethics came over to me. I admit, some of the recent happenings in my personal life have had a bearing on the nature and direction of those thoughts. There have been other happenings around the world, including but not limited to the emergence to prominence of Aam Aadmi party in the recent legislative assembly elections to the state of Delhi, the apology of the British prime Minister on 1972 “slaughter” of Catholic demonstrators, the apology of the Australian government to the “Stolen Generation” of native aborigines etc which have made me think in the recent times on the topic of ethics and ethical responsibilities. You, the reader, may point out the time latency in me expressing my thoughts on this because it has been over 5 years since the Australian Prime Minister Mr. Kevin Rudd tendered his apology and over 3 years since the British Prime Minister Mr. David Cameron did. My answer to that is one word – procrastination..! If only they could envision and develop a software that could print on screen the things you think, simultaneously, I’d be Salman Rushdie..! Before anyone reads on, I’d like to clarify here that I make my living writing software which very capable marketing teams sells to people who might or might not need it. In short, I have neither done a course in philosophy or ethics, not do I intend to do it anytime in the near future. So the views expressed, as they say in any typical disclaimer, are of the author’s own and are, in high likelihood biased, and may even be incorrect.

The omniscient Wikipedia defines ethics as “[involving] systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct.”  I grew up in the non internet age, possibly the last generation that had (or lacked?) the privilege of doing so. My sense of ethics stemmed from my background, in a little conservative, traditional small household in the southern part of India. Like a lot of traditional Hindu families, my parents too had their set of superstitions which, in retrospect, I think form one of the platforms for ethics in my society. A simple “rule” illustrates that. As a child, I was instructed (and it was enforced in my household) that one should not step on paper or books, to do so would be equivalent of insulting Saraswati, the Goddess of letters and learning. And if you accidentally did step on one, you had to touch the book or paper which you stepped on and subsequently touch your hand to your forehead, an equivalent of apologizing. However superstitious this might seem, I think this demonstrates a very simple ethic – to respect letters and books. This example might seem superfluous, but it is one among many that approach the region of overlap of ethics and superstition in our cultures. The exact custom, ritual or background might vary, but the crux or the idea remains largely the same, across various cultures and communities in India. I’ve typically observed, a lot of ethical questions are tied to religion, which, to me, has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Myself, being a benefactor of a being brought up in a culture that has been really old and has possibly been refined over the course of human settlement in south east Asia, I believe I work on a strong platform of ethics. There are certain set of ethics I believe in and I like to stand by it no matter the situation. I can’t quite explain why I do it or what advantage I get by doing it, it is just that somewhere along the course of my life, it so happened that the set of ethics I believed in, was strung onto my character so much that any alteration in those seem to be something that will make me question my character.

I observe this, increasingly so with my generation which has witnessed a massive revolution especially in terms of opening up of the Cyberspace and the opportunities that come alongwith. The advent of internet has thrown up a world which had no precedent, no established set of rules or ethics of governance. In other words, it is like “I don’t know what to do, but whatever I do, so-called good or so-called bad, it won’t be challenged and will get me an audience, get me attention, from somewhere in the cyber world.” I believe in what the great Voltaire said, that “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” but at the same time I do expect what you say to stay within some established and agreed framework of, say, vulgarity. The present competitive world of cut throat competition and its requirements to deliver results ultra-fast, “at any cost”, sweep the concept of ethical responsibility to under the carpet.

I’ve rambled on a my share on the topic, I have to concede the thoughts might be unorganized and trivial, I have, and I would say it would be safe to assume that you too might have, had cases where you had to bent your ethics due to some unforeseen circumstances. Personally I value the role of a sorry, that one word spoken sincerely and from the heart, as something very soothing and to a great extent, compensating the actions you did against your sense of ethics and ethical responsibility. The examples I quoted earlier in this piece, about British and Australian governments apologizing to their own people for acts or atrocities committed are a stellar example of this. I revere the person(s) who had the guts and ethics to confess their crimes and say that sorry in public and that, for me, is something I hope to imbibe and if need be, attain. The poll campaign of the Aam Aadmi Party in the 2013 legislative election in Delhi, are based on the need for an ethical and transparent structure for governance, which, going by the vote share they got, seem to be the aspiration of a common voter in the state of Delhi. Apologies made by Pope John Paul the Second are too numerous to count, and he is a great man I respect for his sense of ethics to speak out. The word sorry, is too small for the too big and wholesome meaning it propounds.

Such men, such instances are becoming too few and far in between and for a better world, if we do need to continue to label ourselves a civilized world, we must come together and have a minimalist set of ethics. It is not something you can frame down in a document or enforce to be followed, it is something you need to inculcate. Before I go on a lengthy diatribe against nuclear power, I should think a moment as to why it was required and then ensure that I’ve done my part in switching off my light and fans so that some little, however insignificant, power is saved. That will increase my credibility to speak against nuclear power. If the issue of ethics, or rather the lack of it, is not addressed, the posterity which would look upto us might not understand the necessity for it, and that, I believe won’t do much good for the vision our ancestors had of tomorrow.

Why does it always rain on me?

I've taken the liberty to borrow a couple of lines from Travis' Why Does it Rain on Me, a song whose lyrics almost always inspire me to write something. Hope Travis doesn't mind..!

As it rained that late summer day, like any other,

I did ask myself

as I had over last uncountable summers, winters and autumns.

Why does it always rain on me,

even when the sun’s shining.

I stood by my guillotine,

my work machine as they always teased her.

I watched with hard eyes as the King stood on the palace deck.

Hard and impassive those eyes looked the judgment day,

was it numb this rainy day?

Determined, the visage proclaimed the judgment day,

did it seem less determined this morn?

I saw the prince alight the steps from the palace,

He still had the crown, he did have the splendor.

He knew he was to go the way as we all did one day, just one day,

but the face he showed, seemed braver than the bravest that day.

The final walk they say, is never long enough,

And true that was, he seemed to reach beside me in a jiffy.

Was it a jiffy, was it an hour,

I had lost sense of time,

But there he was standing beside me,

and all the watching eyes were on me,

after all the executioner does the dirty work, the crowd need just watch.

I had checked my guillotine yesterday,

did I pray a moment now that it didn't work?

I felt no good doing it,

but King’s orders were King’s orders.

Be it the prince or a pauper,

the guillotine blade would always be painted red,

my job to see it happen.

Was the prince’s at fault that he fell in love,

with an ordinary damsel who had none the royalty of the crown?

None my business, said me to myself.

I donned the black hood over the prince,

the look in his eyes was never of a loser.

Placed the crown on his masked head,

his last wish he be dead as crown prince.

The rain thickened, the guillotine strings were tightened,

so were my nerves.

I let the axe fall,

I prayed it be painless.

The crown rolled over,

as his head found a separate bastion from his body.

Everybody saw it above,

even maybe the Gods did.

Maybe the rain was their cry.

The King won, his son now dead,

Was the King now happy?

Yet another punishment meted out,

yet another soul less on this soil.

It never was a fine day for love it seemed.

Why does it always rain on me,

even when the sun’s shining.

Media Regulation - A Common Man's Perspective

The recent articles that surfaced in The Hindu, one by the Hon. Chairman of the Press Council of India Justice Markandeya Katju (http://goo.gl/I1JEx) , and the other by a senior journalist Mr. Swapan Dasgupta (http://goo.gl/LGhe1) , made me delve into the media, as they call, the Fourth Estate of any democratic institution. At the very outset, let me clarify that I am a student trying to learn some bit of engineering and whatever the information I have, is from the media itself. Factual inconsistencies may indeed arise and I apologize for the same. Maybe, a part of that blame though, has to go to the electronic media I so closely follow!

There are quite a lot of points I concur and with due respect, disagree to, in both the arguments. I must confess I am more inclined to Justice Katju’s arguments. The power of media has been undisputed for decades and the recent transformation of the electronic media from a cocoon to a giant size monster is something a philistine like me can simply look upon and awe in wonder. With the Egyptian “revolution” and the mass support base for the Anna Hazare movements attributed to the electronic media and the social networks, it is anyone’s guess that the power of media to influence the public mood has increased, exponentially. And I stress the word influence. It is a popular ode that “With great power comes great responsibility”. And the science of logic, which I strive to assimilate, helps me deduce a slightly improvised version of this, “With greater power, comes greater responsibility”.

I categorize myself to be a common man. One, who is concerned whether I will miss the 9 ‘o Clock bus to college today, whether today there will be a strike in my college, whether my family can survive this month on the money left….these are among the infinite problems I face. Other than a few holiday moments I spend at home which has become few and far between, I do not (read cannot) devote much time to think of things that are outside of my immediate realm. Yes, a petrol price hike falls into immediate consequence category because it threatens my monthly budget. But I do not necessarily know how much oil India imports from Iran and how much of that trade is being done in Indian currency. If I reside in a crowded and congested city, the case of vehicular exhaust pollution will affect me as I see it affecting the health of someone around me. But I do not know how much India’s stance at the G-20 on carbon emissions will affect me. And these are the issues which I read off from a newspaper, or watch the evening TV news to be enlightened of. For an hour in a day. And I get back…to my problems. And it is in this respect, that I humbly allow myself to be categorized into something Justice Katju proclaims, that “90 per cent of the Indians are fools”. Yes, I am not quite proud of that but still I tell myself, that I belong to that classification.

There are a lot of impressive points I assimilate from the debate. Justice Katju stresses that the media must be regulated, not controlled.  And to quote Mr. Dasgupta’s counter-argument, “Since most professions are regulated and accountable, why should the media be the exception?” There is a case which I wish to quote which occurred on April 23, 2012 in The Times of India, a leading English daily in which the photo of a different Ronaldo was given pertaining to a news strip on the lead page, which contained the result of a soccer match. I feel a reason to quote this example, just because of the fact that it was harmless, it didn’t possibly hurt anyone. But a mistake still is a mistake. I wouldn’t have quoted this case had the newspaper offered a correction in a subsequent days’ edition which according to my knowledge, did not occur. Here, I feel, the argument of Justice Katju assumes importance. For a common man who doesn’t know anything about soccer, he didn’t know he was misinformed. And this being an insignificant error, no one complains, no action is taken and all is well with the next day’s edition. Another example which I would point out to drive home my argument is the issue of paid news. The case of politicians bribing the print media to ensure their propaganda reached the masses is an ill-effect of the lack of regulation (self or external) on the media. The problem is compounded by the fact that not just one or two many newspapers and journals allowed themselves to be bribed, which points to the problem of large scale erosion of ethical responsibility in favour of political and economic incentives.  And the punishments meted out to this section of media by the existing regulatory body, could hardly be called inspiring.

I concur with Justice Katju when he says, “The media has become very powerful in India and can strongly impact people's lives.” And this, I feel is where the underlying need for media regulation comes. In a society that is very diverse (I would perhaps use the term fragile as well, to go with it), anything that shapes public opinion needs to be regulated. Not necessarily controlled, but regulated. This is the price we must pay for the mindset we have been shaped into. Of reacting without often thinking. Of being allowed to be influenced by a report before ensuring if it is credible. We, as the people of this country have evolved into this mindset. And I have reason to believe that the media have had an emphatic role to play in the development of this mindset.

I cannot come to terms with some other arguments Mr. Dasgupta points out. For one, he professes the opinion that a statutory “content-controlling” body will effectively cast a grey shadow on the economic freedom enjoyed by the print and electronic media in the country today. Would I be incorrect in reading this opinion as that for media to survive, does it necessarily have to resort to sensationalized and often egregious news reports? When the public are affected to such an extent that they start losing the ability to infer what is right and what is wrong, it necessitates the change in the existing order. And if the media is in no mood to self regulate, a forceful change is an unpleasant but possibly the only option out. For an impartial and enthusiastic public, I feel we need to alter from the current course.

Again, this is not to be confused with the propaganda-based media norms existing in many communist and military regimes. I disagree with Justice Katju in this regard that astrology, life of cricketers, film stars etc should not be covered. Excess of anything is a bane and it applies to this as well. It is a very personal opinion expressed by Justice Katju that some news items should be banned. It is just that the over-emphasis on “sensational news” must be curbed. The issues that demand attention must take up space in the media, and the current trend of bypassing such news, in favor of something containing more “masala” should be done away with. In other words, the prominence of news items should as much be on the importance of issues it highlights. An error, however inadvertent it maybe, must be accounted for and a due apology must be issued. This is a question of integrity and ethics, and if it cannot be self-imposed, it has to be enforced justly and impartially.

If the government aims to reign in the media through parliamentary laws, it must be vehemently condemned. Because in that regard, the right to expression is forfeited. What I envision is as Justice Katju proposes, the formation of an independent, impartial and statutory body. I say independent because it concerns the enforcement which affects a section of the democratic ideals based on which the Constitution of India stands. I say statutory because there are some things that have to be regulated when one considers the interest of the nation. And it has to be impartial because no particular media house or no particular branch of the government or executive should have an absolute control over the media. The concept of Press Council of India is very much on similar lines because it contains members from the press community, the legislature and from other bodies like the UGC, but their executive powers are vastly limited.

 The Press Council of India should be expanded to reflect a more accurate ideology – more representatives from the media, plus prominent social activists should be included in the same. I would deem the role of social activists as vital because they are the people who can be expected to raise the voice on behalf of me, the common man. And an important step ahead would be to increase the powers, something on the lines of the Election Commission of India. With an able team to lead the press in the country in a direction so as to empower the media and thus invigorate the media-following citizens, am sure the media will play an ever increasing pivotal role in making our country a better place to live, for more and more of the citizens of the state.

The media have had the power. They have enjoyed the liberties conferred to it as the fourth estate of democracy. Did they misuse it..? At least if some people did not have this doubt, the talk of media regulation may not have arisen in the first place…