why This Kolaveri ?

 

Go to shopping malls search through Internet search engines or visit social networking websites there is this new kind of noise about giving back. People some how want to feel that they are givers. Nice noise but in real sense ‘giving’ will receive its right order of priorities only when it qualifies to joy of sharing not giving. Attitude of sharing is the sign of a healthy individual and harmonious society, while sense of giving is replete with being one-upped and that is denial of inherent Human Dignity. Apart from cooperation/help in Capacity building, education and health, a healthy humanity never needs anything as charity.

Fact is that human beings meet each other only on the real ground of sharing, else they do not meet, they may assemble or come together to celebrate/communicate or make a point keeping their perceived interests in mind, however, it may be albeit consciously or unconsciously/benevolently.

In real sense word meet means getting dissolved/melting. While giving do we really dissolve? Or come back with yet colossal ego of being a giver, Think it over?). 

 

 Suppose, some of us are coming forward to ‘give’ by cutting corners back home, in that case it would be termed as eseential/compulsory giving, at the behest/cost of sacrificial nature of people back home. There may be lot many possibilities hiding behind such ‘giving’. For example it may be due to affection for the person who wants to feel being a giver, other members in the family do not stop him/her despite wanting/needing to oppose, or it may be due to the force of tradition running in the family from generations. Surprisingly most of the time real compassionate leaders in the society come from such backgrounds where members of immediate family sacrifices to some extent.

 

Response/giving/charity becomes sharing the moment it is done to maintain order of priorities. It is like distributing a chapatti half and half between your progeny and neighbors child, while both of them have natural need to eat two chapattis each. Therefore by leaving the need of one person partially addressed we reach out to next person just to offer solace if not complete satisfaction to both that is giving, how many of us will qualify to being givers by this definition? But this is not our question; it is just an indication to have a mirror in front of us all the time. Pertinent question is, is it ideally desirable state of equilibrium in any society or broad humanity?

 

Contradiction may be seen in it when I say if we who are doing it in aforesaid manner then it is commendable activity on the part of the ones who are sharing it, but at the same time it is reflection on them among us who have more then what they need and are not ready to give or share.

 

Let me add here for the sake of bringing clarity that, life is full of seeming/apparent contradictions and the ones who know that there are no contradictions in essence, that this appearance is deceptive, that these are just dialects of ultimate inherent unity, therefore they need to focus their vision on inherent unity and not on apparent duality/contradiction/dialects, such ones stand firm footed on ground of sharing and upholding universal human values. Are we doing that?

 Let me put it through an example, suppose bureaucrats/professionals/executives/politicians make a decision that henceforth no dereliction in duty, no bribe, no taking refuge by hiding behind the laws for scuttling progress. Instead they say yes to maximize work. Yes to fast movement of projects. Yes to make use of legal provisions to serve people in the best self imposed moral spirit to serve. Doing all this will be rightful giving because professionals receive (take) their salaries or remuneration in lieu of what they are doing (give) at job. This may be called ‘give and take’ in the present context of transitional phase of human society and market world over.

 

 But, I doubt after doing their duties/jobs in aforesaid spirit there will be left any penny or any spare amount of time to ‘enjoy the joy of giving. Do I need to elucidate that honest professional hardly gets sufficient to survive in his/her positioned/acquired place in society (read market) and to maintain corresponding standard of life, which mostly maintained to show/exhibit to others for a plethora of reasons ranging from resemblance to exoticism, finally ending in to madness/senselessness of sorts, if wisdom doesn’t dawn upon them. This holds true for 99% excepting 1% who command 99% of wealth and power.

Imagine businessmen decide to make money only on the qualitative-strength of product and services so on and so forth. Imagine all political parties unanimously agree on ushering in electoral reforms that wipes out the need of money power in winning the elections altogether and gives way to clean and honest service minded people instead of the ones who are ruling the roost. And imagine little more (after all this rest in imagination only) if all this is done after shedding the extra baggage of amassed ill-gotten money that pinches to conscientious beings among them or give sleepless nights in the age of wikileaks. Then, after some time we will notice that there will be no need to organize such cosmetic ‘giving’ get-togethers necessitated by the lack and want.

So long as feeling of giving remains feeling of receiving cannot be wished away. In fact there is no joy in giving it is only in sharing. If one gets joy in giving then somewhere deep down in universal mind it is just pity camouflaging as piety. Mind you! When piety runs, pity run away and vice versa.

 

This is so because market has become arbitrator in the society and market values are replacing human values openly and surreptitiously as well, tragedy and irony is that all this is happening entirely inside all of us, we all are participants in empowering market’s grip on our humaneness/sensitivity’s neck. It (façade of giving) will also turn in to mere sloganeering, as especially in our country (and world over in various names like occupy movement etc) these days remove corruption (bhrashtachar hatao) has become.

 

 Those of us who have the courage and clarity to look within and without, know fully well that corruption is inside us as individuals and therefore the moment we resolve to clean it from our mind it will not manifest outside, if outside noise helps in awakening this truth inside all then it would be termed as a job well done, else we will not progress. But what to do? as common people, do not have access to mass media/platform to express disliking for this forced order of priorities of wants on their natural order of priorities based on needs, except by joining them and if despite joining them some of us who try to keep their conscience it doesn’t take much to get identified as odd men out. And odd men literally ‘helped’ to go out. So what is the way out, think over it? New media may hold the key! Why we need to advocate for the ownership of media by not for profit organizations or why media organizations must be run in the spirit of not for profit, to begin with.

 

  As, expressing our dislike alone can help us exorcise these ghosts (of diverse kinds of false identifications) from our soul. As there is complex interplay of market forces to gag the reality and encourage superficiality, glorifying consumerism is one such market force unleashed to capture mind-space. On the other hand suppression of expressing ourselves as human beings is throttling human values and yielding mind space to consumer being in us. Think it over, why this Kolaveri?

 

Most of us branded as middle class people, who are in demand in the market due to our hard earned professional skill sets or due to our entrepreneurial abilities to recognize potential to cater to wants (as the case may be), and hence have access to buy purchasing power to survive as nuclear families (mostly remaining on the periphery, yet posing as if we are in the center), even we cannot comprehend logically how this is happening, that irrespective of almost every material possession being at our beck and call we are not at peace with ourselves, we do not have joyful countenance and we do not have requisite spare time (and after a point neither physical nor moral health) at our disposal to observe ourselves objectively, but all of us do feel the pinch. Ironically/tragically we may have more time to ourselves if we choose to become poor. Why is that so? Is there a flaw in our current development theory and arbitration of society having passed in the hands of market, yet being propagandize as if it were still at will of the state empowered by we the people?

 

 Today, we find misbalance in human relations that gives place to artificiality in life. And we coin such concepts which camouflaging our real concern as human beings, give us a superficial sense of belongingness. We try to fool our hearts, all the time. Yet, steeped in its wisdom, Poor our heart keeps us forgiving till it lasts. Poor organ! Suffers because of being most sensitive. We do not do justice to our own body even. Why are we so cruel to ourselves?

 

For example, look around you and you will notice people yelling at their real aged parents while sympathizing with old people on tv screens depicted in serial and films under similar plight. We see husbands beating wives in real life and crying when some husband or in-laws do it in a narration on screen. What is this? And more pertinently why is this?

 

Expressing ourselves aesthetically through arts is commendable and worth aspiring activity, and it is positive indication that society has a rich cultural reservoir, it should be encouraged, but losing sense of discerning, that what is real and what is artificial, is a sure sign of decay of human values and wisdom. Objective of arts is to make us sensitive as real-beings and not to lull us by deporting to a utopian surrealism. Arts are for living beings; living beings are not for arts of living. Order of priority must be set right. It is blurring of line. Yet, liberality says instead of asking who is responsible for it, let us ask what is responsible for it?

 

All such activities that glorify charity hid some decaying facet of humanity. Except for capacity building purposes to supplement the efforts of state; that too, whenever its equilibrium is found disturbed. Otherwise, need for charity is a statement on morality of concerned nation state and in the larger sense on the morality of worldwide humanity.

 Ponder over it bit more deeply!  

Let me put it through an example how morality is compromised in media openly and no body finds it objectionable. A player/actor whom people came to adore because he turned out an excellent performer in his/her field activity endorses a product with some message attached cleverly, which s/he doesn’t really need to use or believe in using. Is this endorsement/happening/activity not corruption? Meditate over it.

 

Media earnestly vies to spread such message in the form of advertisement. Such is the mad-earnestness to reap the financial profits that media owners are hell bent on pushing their respective institutions/brands to the stage of message becoming the medium. Greed is making them forget that ideal of media is –‘medium is the message’ and not other way round.  Now what is the hurdle that they still could not fully capture our consciousness and push us to a reality, where there will be no option but to handover our freedom to hyper-consumer in us instead of abstemious being in us? It is credibility (much to their dismay who wish to transform us in to hyper-consumer), which in the ultimate run survives on human values in the open. A wikileak comes and instantly becomes darling of the world. ‘News of the world’ despite being for hundred and fifty years in existence had to shut the shop immediately. A human heart has inherent mechanism to differentiate, but honesty in media would have made heart’s burden less. If media is doing the reverse by saying that ‘I (media vehicles) am also a product choose if you have to’ then why should we call it media? And if it says I am not a product like any other then let it owes a duty to tell us how not it is? That too in a transparent, responsible and accountable manner every time it comes/appears before us. Else, it should realize that we know that appearances that do not carry human values may be deceptive.

Medium is the message

 Imagine if newspaper begins to give proportionate coverage in correct and real manner to activities in life without surreptitiously guarding the sources of advertisement? Imagine biased news finds no space in newspapers and television. Imagine Instead of surviving on ad-revenue media begins to survive on strength of content. Imagine media resolves to survive on the affection of the readers/viewers instead of forcing them in the reality of having no option but to choose between the product and product. Imagine media dedicates it self to become media as opposed to any other product. Imagine selflessly and work to transform your imagination in reality, as this spirit has the potential to lead you entering in to divinity and become one with creator.

Anna Movement

People Vs Power

Setting Perspective Right

Debate that began with Jan Lokpal got gradually translated in social movement against rampant corruption. Agreed that corruption connotes very many things, and it is well neigh unthinkable that one man’s fast could have weeded it out from the face of country entirely. Nonetheless, it is only due to such initiatives taken by man of character and proven credibility that hope flickers among the masses that scope to fight through democratic means for seeking probity in public life is still there. This movement has played its limited yet very real role by giving a much-needed jolt to parliamentarians (not Parliament) that after winning elections and making it to positions of power, they must not sit ensconcing in cozy comforts till next elections. Instead, they need to deliver goods in right spirit of people’s aspirations, by keeping in touch with ground reality, that too, in a transparent and accountable manner. Yet it remains in the womb of future whether political class takes it positively or not? But the jolt was real; this was evidently proven in parliament. Parliamentarians across party lines appeared shaken while they spoke in parliament on Saturday. This jolt couldn’t have been delivered effectively had the advocates of Jan-Lokpal not been as well versed in constitutional provisions and related intricacies, as our political masters. It is due to such competence of now famed Team-Anna that during these dozen of days government fumbled, right from the beginning, when they arrested Anna Hazare and got exposed many times over, part of credit for the success of this unprecedented democratic mobilization goes to media too, specially electronic media which played a role in involving urban middle class in it which is so much frustrated with price rise, unemployment, and many more slow moving processes of governance that results in blocking of common aspirations of people. In extending their support to Jan-Lokpal and expressing their solidarity with Team-Anna, they found an opportunity to vent their ire in a creative, peaceful and matured democratic style. It is a fact that ‘leading participants’ in this movement were urban middle classes, yet it involved one and all. At this point I cannot remain but to mention that media especially electronic media should also need to rethink about its responsibility! Whether it’s role is limited to keep the glare of their cameras, focusing only on ‘their’ perceived audiences having requisite purchasing power and aiming the ad-pie or it has to play an educative and more down to earth role also. If we discuss it in details, which we need to, yet in this piece that would be digression from the subject in hand, hint should suffice.  

As things stand toady, it remains yet to be seen what will happen to Jan- Lokpal despite having passed the resolution by accepting three main conditions. As law making, specially phrasing is a tedious process wherein even a single comma changes the meaning i.e. its interpretation. Nonetheless, Anna has already made his contribution to the cause of nation successfully. And he has done so not on one count but many. I feel his foremost contribution lie in breaking the myth, that in current times of 24X7 media coverage, people vent their ire before the screen, sitting in their homes, they do not come out in streets to express solidarity; howsoever plausible the cause be. Anna has demolished ‘this’ theory propounded and circulated by vested interests that peaceful democratic mobilizations or social movements have become almost extinct world over. He has proved that people not only came out to express solidarity but they maintained their peace throughout, and remained restraint also. It is a kind of affirmation of the nation to itself that it is matured, secular and vibrantly democratic. And Anna Hazare deserves credit for his courage to believe in himself as well as in innate quality of people of this country to separate chaff from the grain under all circumstances. He in a sense gave solid reaffirmation to people about them that given a credible leadership they can match step for step with him or her in spearheading peaceful movement,that unlike, current dispensation of political leadership they have not forgotten Gandhian values. 

A section of intelligentsia was seen murmuring over the legitimacy of fast as a means to democratic protest for pressing ones point. They said it was tantamount to taking parliament to ransom. Interestingly, this section is of the opinion that means applied (read fast) by Anna Hazare would have been apt, had (as opposed to elected government) there been an imperial power ruling our country. This view is not only bleakly myopic but against very democratic spirit also. No need to say that even in democracies people in power are seen behaving as arrogantly as even emperors would have found difficult to behave. It is high time people in power realizes it. There is no alternative to character. Be it democracy or imperialism these remain mere words until we infused meaning in them by our actions. Despite inherited political systems beyond our control and our individual positions both, the way we exercise ourselves -that alone gives meaning to life and words. I would suggest before passing the verdict they should think why the need for such an extreme step (yes, extreme) has risen? Why an upright person like Anna had to revert to it? Political scientist should definitely ponder over the prevailing state of political consciousness among people and lack of conscientiousness among establishmentarians.

 Let there be no doubt in anybody’s mind that democracy is our first choice and it must be also. This being undisputed bottom line, we shouldn’t forget that solutions to the problems of democracy is more democracy, not authoritarianism. However, arising the necessity to choose between conceding public space to democratic dissent and exercising state authority to cut dissent to size in the name of law and order; weighing of options is important. Contemplation of punitive action by one set of privileged people sitting in positions of power and parroting threat to parliamentary democracy as rhetorical justification for cracking down against another set of public spirited people raising their voice for corruption free governance and more democracy, would certainly not have gone down the throat of common man so easily, more so in current times when corruption is writ large on the face of government. Therefore, in all times before taking any harsh action, it must be made clear to the nation, whether such an authority (read government) still carrying moral vitality to go ahead and crush a movement by terming it unlawful. Had government done so again, it would have reduced merely to its legal skeletal frame of law enforcing agency in the eyes of public. This being the case, government needs to remind itself that Anna Hazare and people galvanized around the cause he is fighting for are not criminals, least said better understood.

 Politicians cutting across all the party lines need to remember, claim to power in a democracy is essentially moral. It is better if they visualize winning an election as, just a systematic affirmation of confidence by voters in their leadership, at a point in time. Having won an election does not give them absolute power over the destiny of people. Being in public service is like being incessantly in camera. In every picture frame they must be seen standing tall with public and not in ruling/rival camp.  In democracies duty come first and not the authority. Instead of committing themselves to higher ideals of serving the nation, power mongers in the guise of politicians and bureaucrats, hiding behind seats of power, tend to use legitimate power for furthering their illegitimate self-serving purposes by somehow holding on to power.  Unfortunately, as compared to examples of politicians serving the nation in true spirit, instances of aforesaid nature have become conspicuous. In such a scenario, as individuals people have no choice but to face their day-to-day life bravely, until some mass movement happens and people galvanize to emphasize necessity for pressing reforms. On such occasions power mongers and peoples power come face to face in an intense manner. During such engagements common people realize reality and façade of welfare state. Current craving for a corruption free (read accountable) character of government, which has come to the fore by way of demand for a strong Lokpal is one such instance. Therefore, while handling secular issues, involving mobilization of public opinion, state power should be exercised not only in most democratic manner but also in democratic spirit (as opposed to arrogant and self righteous style) also. State apparatus is empowered by sanction of democratic authority, misusing it for crushing democratic spirit of the people by hiding behind veneer of election-earned power will be dishonest. Citing unpalatable reasons of erosion of democratic freedom at the hands of democratic dissenters may have catapulting effect. Powers that be better remember this in their own interest. Unfortunately while speaking in Parliament, Rahul Gandhi set the tone for appropriating brawny points, after that scenario turned in a free for all, all across the political parties to do the same. He has every right to have an opinion that he has but timing of voicing was wrong. He should have chosen his words more cautiously. Young leaders should stand up to aspirations of the people and not against them.

Nand Kishore Tiwari

Occupy Credibility :Newspapers and TV channels

 

should be run in not for profit spirit

Nand Kishore Tiwari

Let me pose a question what really happens when a profession begins to decay in to a business enterprise? why I call journey from profession to business as decay? This can be understood by noticing basic difference in role and attitude of a person as professional and as businessman, which in turn can be understood by his respective choices of commitment in spirals of needs and wants, how they vary according to his role and attitude. Professional commits oneself to fulfil needs and help in maintaining an activity/enterprise to retain it as a profession. Need based service is the priority of a person in his role as a professional. While, glorifying wants and finding the ways to fulfil them with profit motive as 'the driving force' makes one businessman. However, both the roles are there to serve humanity through  institutional mechanisms (and at times same person is also found  shouldering both the responsibilities. For burning example we can name wikileaks'Zulian Asanze,also inter press service.) Yet, there is a subtle difference between the nature of their serving. 

Former acts/works to fulfil a demand generated due to necessity, and, her/his delivery is need based. One may ask whose necessity? And whose need? Necessity most often than not, revolves around essentials in any given context. And need of the ones who yearn for basic minimum requirement, which will qualify institution and people to live in dignified life conditions in society, at any particular point of time or in a given context, for that matter. Spiral of wants should begin when needs are fulfilled.
We are living in a time where decay in human values is rampant. Leadership is always essentailly moral. As soon as we compromise on priorities we then and there loose the right to lead, but alas! driven by selfish motives or inefficiency priorities are being compromised and hence confusion is ensuing in every field of life. Confusion delays decisions. FDI in retail is the case in point.This is vicious selffueling spiral. If the leadership is not sure of outcome of any particular policy decision, then open debate and clarity through consensus is the only democratic way to come out of it, else it will keep on hindering our progress as individuals,as a nation and finally as earthlings in the literal sense.
Just for example, take the case of mass media in our country, where, compromise on sense of proportion (that how much space should be given to rural India) is clearly visible, as barring a few exceptions, no big newspaper or television channel is giving due attention to rural reporting, case of urban poor is not much different either. It is because neither rural nor urban poor are having purchasing power to indulge in buying new goodies and hence enhance the market reach. Most of them even cannot afford to buy second newspaper; ironically reach of TV is making bit of headway though. Proprietors of newspapers or channels do not bother to look beyond the interests of advertising class, and as interests of the later lay in expansion of conspicuous consumer class, therefore, newspaper or television channel have no choice but to churn out content that glorifies conspicuous consumption. That brings us to the question. What is wrong in it? Especially, when looking at human beings as ‘discerning consumers’ is the rising trend world over, and ‘conspicuous consumer’ is the identity of new man. Why should we lag behind in this race? More so, as long as consumers do not complain, why should your or my blood boil?

 Answer is very simple. Anticipation was that competition would bring out best in the profession, but it is not happening that way, because there is a subtle difference between other consumer products and media, as it has the power to influences peoples decision to buy other products in many more direct and indirect (surreptitious) ways, this power sets media apart from all other consumer products. To make it more clear, borrowing a simile from quantum physics, we can say distingushed from other consumer products media  has wave-particle nature. For example, a story is published on page 3 which hints that the party at so and so’s house last night was very successful most of the important bureaucrats and politicos and scribes were there and that such and such attire was the mandated dress code there and next party will be held at place x where the dress code will be y. Now, want has been created among the aspirants who wish to be part of party at x.
Moreover, it is a fact that most visible common minimum denominator across all the big media houses is money coming from advertisers. I am quoting only a visibly recognisable fact. There are a plethora of hidden benefits and sources of income, which however are recognisable only by the after effects.  Thus driven by profit motive focus of media ventures have shifted entirely in the opposite direction. It is called fourth pillar of democracy,because the anticipation was that it will take care of all, but. alas! it has also has carved out a class called conspicuous consumer class and started pandering to it. Political parties can hardly look beyond victories and defeats in the elections and they have confined themselves (at best) to votes.Judiciary has its own limitations as,first of all, not all approach it and neither it has wherewithal to reach on time to all. Delay in delivering justice is writ large on its face. Bureaucracy, more or less keep dumping its 'will to serve', under the double speak of legislative as executives. When, it should use the laws and rules to further progress, unfortunately it utilises them for scuttling the progress, as common man, most of us are having enough first hand experience of it evryday.

So where to look for light? where from that flickering hope manifest? what, if common man finds alienated ? So what if mass media swears to keep the conscience of nation? So, what If this reduces citizen to consumer? So what if media claims to be voice of the voiceless and thrive on the basis of credibility grabbed in the name of donning aforesaid responsibility? So what, if vast majority of our population doesn’t possess as much purchasing power that could enable them to maintain a decent and dignified existence as families and individuals? So what if nobody knows this (and so many other such bitter truths) better than media professionals? The sad fact is that apart from suggesting the solution they also know power of media and role of media in influencing the policy decisions and mood of the electorate both. But delivering fair comment and unbiased news is not possible without being a courageous professional. Guts to carry ones responsibility in a transparent manner with accountability is all that is needed .I singled out media as an example because media is the only profession which, if decides to stay as a profession, have the potential to change the face of the nation for good, which in fact should be it’s rightful mission. Else, it is business in the garb of a profession.

Mass media is a powerful tool, which, due to its sheer reach and instant delivery have capacity to keep the conscience of humanity. But, unfortunately it itself is struggling for its survival as a profession. Mass media has become a business, yet being camouflaged as profession, as ‘cover’ of being profession gives it immense credibility. This is cheating. What can you do?

 You write something not because you can read ‘collective consciousness’ and you know it well in advance that a want has been created for such and such reading material which if be based on such and such idea, and such and such thoughts imaginatively woven and beautifully decorated with words, will surely turn out an eyeball grabber stuff or a best seller! No, you write because you feel/know that something needs to be conveyed and shared through words as part of your duty/love/care/service/help towards humanity, lest humanity’s direction and orientation may take wrong turn. While businessman works to create a want and most often than not he camouflage it as need so as to coerce him/her to buy it without guilt. (As common people in our country are conscientious so much so that buying something which was not to address the need but to fuel the luxury, still induces a feeling of guilt in them, and they are not wrong either, as some of our countrymen still sleep hungry, most amongst them being women and children.) By creating either confusion or misdirected desire in human mind via ever increasing means of communication (e.g. by encouraging and infusing value in a ‘want’ based life style and products through movies/serial and advertisement etc) with incessant and clever manner that he or she can not differentiate between essential and superfluous or if he or she somehow clings to wisdom which is very rare then also (as said above) demands of duality/social etiquette will do him/her in. Idea of absolute freedom is a farce. Mind you, freedom is always shared. Do you still buy the idea that you are free to buy?

 Problem lies at this very point wherein businessman wants professional to produce things for which want (artificial need) has been created and be partner in further fuelling the demand for wants of diverse nature. While professional should prefer to remain well within limits of needs based delivery but is that happening that way? For example once a writer attains brand value in the market, he or she instead of maintaining the sense to write only need-based stuff, starts dishing out want-oriented fare in the market. And to keep his/her conscience clear says, people are free to buy or not to buy. While in his/her heart he or she knows that any work, which is not essential, is not worth doing. Now, taking advantage of ‘credibility’ (which can be hard earned or purchased through advertising/image building PR companies) posing a want as a need before the ones who trust you is not right. Is that essential for you?

        Theory of spiral of needs and wants hold good in every field. In delivering a service or product, professionals take (they ought to also) decisions in accordance with priorities that are self-evident due to essentially being based on the pyramid of basic needs, keeping in mind dynamics of all-inclusive progress. Spirit of harmonious progress is the key. Here decision-making and discretion to execute a decision both are of crucial importance, as widening the horizon for individual potential and social progress depends on it. Creation of scope is the responsibility of the ones who have discretion. Accountability is essentially felt in the inner domain of morality. Nobody knows it better whether one is corrupt or a man of character than the individual him/herself. Most of the fallings/failings or risings occur in the confines of secluded space of human heart. To the outer world (say ‘other’) you may prove a wrong appearing to be ‘not wrong’ and vice-versa. As, at times appearances may be deceptive. Doing this to oneself may cost you your soul. Forget ‘other’, your own appearance may become deceptive to you. Quality of capability in discerning chaff from the grain widens scope of discretion; efficacy in executing decisions paves way for becoming deserving for more and more discretion. I am saying here discretion and not ‘discretionary power’, and saying so and not saying so is a deliberate decision. Whether you want to be a professional or businessman or middleman in the garb of a media man, think again. Medium is the message; therefore, imbibing in character, enthusiasm to handle responsibility, efficiency to practise transparency, and courage to accept accountability is crucial for being a credible media person.

Despite value addition of diverse nature, despite Wikileaks, sting operations, sensational news stories, catchy headlines and colourful photographs, etc etc. Despite, applying all the cosmetics available in the stylebook to bring the point home on any public interest issue,yet its impact remains short lived. Why? Because, there is no alternative to hard earned credibility! On this count have most of newspapers and channels already gone beyond the point of no return?Sooner or later media people will have to decide whether media, that once had hallowed aura of being a mission, is now struggling for its own identity, as it is struggling between being classified as a profession and reducing to a business. Mirror needs to identify/name its own image.