Let's weigh our every word!

The tongue has no bones but is strong enough to break a heart. The tongue can stoke fire and spoil relationships between individuals as well as nations, going by the global religious and diplomatic developments triggered by Nupur Sharma, the official spokesperson and Naveen Kumar Jindal, Media Head of Delhi unit of Bharatiya Janata Party. Despite the suspension of Nupur and the expulsion of Jindal, the outcry against their remarks is still reverberating within and outside the country.

It is crystal clear that the duo failed to use right words at the right time. Certainly, for me, this is not the right time to discuss who is right and who is wrong in this unfortunate development. But the entire episode demands the civil society to ponder over certain key issues to safeguard democratic values and the long-cherished concept of unity in diversity.

Persons like Nupur and Jindal are part and parcel of a highly polluted political culture and we have many more such acerbic-tongues in all political parties. They go scot-free only because they are lucky. The present-day politics prefers hate than love. It embraces war-mongers than peace-lovers. It needs hardcore types than soft-spoken. It thrives on liars than truth-seeking gentlemen or women. It supports black sheep over white pigeons. What kind of political culture we, as audience, voters and media, individually and collectively, are supporting? is the moot question.

Ugly components of hate

The 'triangular theory of hate', dealt by the Cornell University Professor Robert J Sternberg, better explains the various components of hate we are allowing to seep into our political system. The three components of hate are: negation of intimacy (split people based on various factors), passion (constant depiction of the 'target' as a threat), and brainwash (change the thought process of the preferred population).

Every dictator methodologically carried out these three tasks to prove their supremacy through bloodshed and mayhem. Mankind paid a heavy price for such hate lovers. As per the different combinations of components, the professor came up with seven types of hate. Thy are: cool hate, hot hate, cold hate, boiling hate, simmering hate, seething hate and burning hate. If just one lunatic practises these hates, the bloodshed is limited and is time-bound (it lasts till he dies) but if a religion as a unit allows its practitioners to follow suit, it poses a grave threat to our civilization.

Some fundamentalist forces are always trying to push cool hate to burning hate that calls for the need for annihilation. Having seen the impact of burning hate in our history, it is not wise for a secular country like India to allow religious fundamentalists to rule the roost. In these modern times, religion should be treated as a pure personal issue and it is not meant for creating animosity, hatred and bigotry. Religion should not be a theme for street fights and arson. If hate is allowed to use as a weapon, every small issue would be blown out of proportion for political reasons posing a danger to the harmonious relations of the present and future generations.

Hence, it is the duty of the citizens, irrespective of their religious beliefs, to thwart all attempts that encourage hate. Since the political class has already caused damage to the society by polarizing voters on religion and caste lines for its electoral gains, educated citizenry, intelligentsia and media have a greater role to play to promote love, the only antidote for hate.

TRP-driven TV debates

Independent media is a perquisite for a robust democracy and peaceful society. The 'own media' and 'paid media' establishments are openly supporting the hatemongers while suppressing the already feeble secular voices. Liberal intellectuals, unfortunately, are unable to play the role as impartial judges.

I strongly feel that the live debates on our television channels are causing an enormous damage. In a mad TRP ratings race, a section of unethical anchors turned into rabble-rousers. They are allegedly encouraging participants to behave in the most uncouth manner. A culture of shouting, abusing and heckling is in full display every night during the prime time.

The way the debates are run leaving out impartiality, one of the key elements of journalistic ethics, is highly disgusting. The DD era to the NDTV era to the Republic era, there is a drastic change in live newsroom debates. Cacophony over content is the order of the day. This kind of high-decibel shouting match journalism has inspired a crop of anchors in the regional language news channels too.

There is a strong need of a powerful mechanism to monitor the debates of the mainstream television channels. Since 'self-regulation' of media is a myth in the highly politicised and commercialised environment coupled with insufficient laws, all live debates should be scrutinized by a high-powered committee. It should put its observations or objections in the public domain on a daily basis for an open debate. All the editorial staff, anchors, reporters and editors, of the mainstream channels should undergo rigorous training to stick on to the basics of journalism.

Similarly, political parties should take every care in appointing spokespersons. Instead of cutting a sorry figure due to the foolish statements of their representatives, political bosses should consider qualifications, temperament and other personality traits before appointing them as their spokespersons. In the garb of free speech, social media platforms are vitiating the atmosphere further. Social media is used to spread lies, canards and to issue death threats to the persons of opposite ideology. It is getting worse with every passing day.

In addition to hate speeches, we have silly talks that hurt people and their sentiments. The organ with taste buds is capable of making distasteful comments to stir the blood of people, if the user doesn't have a sense of balance. For instance, a Bollywood star's remark on the timeline of India's independence. We have many celebrities with a loose tongue.

Having studied misunderstandings, heart burns and outrages caused by spoken words, I have two important suggestions to make. One, words get heavier when past is mixed with present. One's interpretation of the past is always tricky and risky. Don't dig up the graves to make our point or win an argument. It will make others' lives miserable. Second, you should be careful when you talk in front of a microphone, a potential threat to natural communication. You tend to project yourself as an intellectual. In the process there is a likelihood of you opting for hyperbole. You bound to commit a gaffe when you try to play it to the gallery. The latest communication technologies and modern gadgets have made us vulnerable to commit these crimes at the cost of others' health and happiness.

As they say, words, spoken or written, are bullets and seeds. Wish to use bullets to make others cry and bleed, as being done by a majority of us? Then you are dubbed as a hard-nut or a psychopath. Or, wish to sow the seeds of love and affection to bring joy and happiness in others, like some of us? Then you are remembered as a sweet person. Choice is yours.

(The author, a Ph.D. in Communication and Journalism, is a senior journalist, journalism educator, and communication consultant)