Bush visit was opposed by communists and Muslim fundamentalists. The rhetoric of labels is a great way to end conversations or annul the nuances of different positions.

Right after Bush landed in New Delhi, and was greeted by rallies between five hundred to a couple of thousand people and various venues, a number of Indian newspapers phrased Bush’s visit as successful, pointing out though, that his visit was protested by communists and Muslim fundamentalists.

Such a comment serves a number of purposes. For one, it is not important to really understand why they were protesting his visit. By labeling them Muslim fundamentalists and communist we were shown that the protestors were adherents of two ideologies – one that is presented as evil and associated with terrorists and the other that has already been proven to be an ill fit in this world, has been proven to fail, has nothing really to offer and is an anachronism.

Second, it said that the protests really were not important and readers need not worry about them and even though they happened, they were of no consequence. Thus, the event was explained as really a radical aberration and the concerns of those presenting the event were annulled.

In a democratic society, more than the process of voting, the basis of society is the existence of processes through which people can listen to and understand each other’s concerns. The freedom of expression and the right to assemble are parts of that process. When the process through which people can listen and understand become constrained, voting becomes meaningless.

The media has an important role to play in this process that sustains a large democracy as India – that of helping share these concerns among a wider populace. Of course, it can critique these concerns but it cannot ridicule or belittle them – and that is exactly what it has done.

A much more meaningful presentation of these protests could have presented the spectrum of complex arguments being presented by those who wanted to protest the Bush visit, those who wanted to protest Bush policies but not his visit, and those who did not want to protest. It could have presented the various aspects and considerations of many who had opinions about the visit, the humanity of these positions but most importantly, the variety of concerns that motivated them. It would have been a strengthening of a democracy.

Unfortunately very few of the media channels carried such a discussion. Most were happy to put the entire event into a side note, represented by two boxes – those who were rabid enough to oppose the visit and the rest of India. Thus the media failed. As did we in civic society in not demanding more out of this media.

- Sanat Mohanty

Related Links
Cricketing Decision Rated as Critical For India’s Future
What do these Workers Want?
Cartoon of the Prophet, Caricature of Expression
Revisiting Geelani’s Comments