Hate Mail or Unpopular Opinion

A few danish Cartoons have generated a grave controversy across the world strengthening the divide between Muslims & Non-Muslims. There has been violent backlashes resulting into ceased trades with "culprit" nation, or attacking their embassies in various countries so on and so forth. The Denmark government took a stand that the paper is well within its rights of freedom of expression guaranteed by the nation. Jyllands-Posten however apologised for the publishing of cartoons. A few newspapers in Norway and France also published the cartoons in question. In nutshell the issue has sparked the debate on the gray areas surrounding freedom of experssion, religious sentiment and need for sensitivity in communicating differences of opinions. Some interesting perspectives

Rajeev Dhavan in Times of India (Feb 16th 2006, Mumbi City Edition) writes
“There is a difference between ‘unpopular speech’ and ‘hate speech’. Only the former must be protected. Hate speech consists of deliberate and intentional attempt to insult and wound sensitivities of a group and community with intent of inciting strong reaction or knowing that disorder may foreseeably follow. Many legal systems treat racist, communal and sexist speech as impermissible hate speech. India is no exception.”

Sounds right isn’t it? Sample this

Swaminathan S Anklesaria Aiyar writes (The Sunday Times, 12th Feb 2006) in a delightfully candid manner
“I congratulate the Danish government for standing firm, insisting that its media have freedom, and refusing to apologise. Somebody has to stand up for basic freedom. The protesters reject the sanctity of free speech. Amazingly, traditional guardians of civil liberties have remained muted or silent: they seem to think that a hard line will simply spark more violence. This is not just spineless, it is an insult to my religion of liberal atheism.”

In the larger debate the issue has taken the shape of a debate between protection of Right to freedom of expression and unacceptability of hate speech specially against a religion or community.

Writes Rajeev Dhawan
"Many legal systems treat racist, communal and sexist speech as impermissible hate speech. India is no exception. Communal hate speech is criminalised by the Indian Penal Code (Sections 153A and 294A) and liable to be banned (Section 95 of the Cr PC) and subject to customs bans. "

Isn't it amazing!! while I was aware that this is true in the indian context but I never thought that this can be a matter of debate or even a difference of opinion. And then Ravi Kiran Rao wrote this thought provoking post on his blog. He concludes "I’ve heard it said that the right to free speech cannot be absolute, that the government should have the power to make exceptions to this right on a case by case basis, on pragmatic grounds. But it seems to me that the right to free speech in the US works only because it is absolute. If we make an exception for one case, people cite it and ask for an exception for themselves too. If the government can restrict free speech by passing laws, politicians will get elected by promising their constituents that they will expand the restriction to cover their concerns too. Free speech survives only because it is an absolute right. "

Come to think of it thats a great point - if there are ifs & buts to the right to express one self freely then will it remain "free speech".

Now read what Rajeev Dhavan Says
"there is a vast difference between opposing bans and supporting contents of all and any free speech. Voltaire's famous aphorism defends the right to free speech but does not prevent civil society from denigrating its contents. We may defend the right to publish unpopular, even provocative, speech while condemning certain statements of free speech as disgusting. In doing so, we would simply be confronting free speech with free speech."

Specific to the cartoon controversy Rajeev's article comments
"In the cartoon controversy, it would not have been contradictory for the Danish prime minister to extol freedom of press but condemn the cartoons themselves. Jyllands-Posten was right in apologising for the cartoons. Their re-republication by other newspapers was necessarily provocative in the worst traditions of free press. Diplomatic protests and cessation of trade ties may fall within the scope of symbolic retaliatory free speech. But violent protests are beyond permissibility."

This line of argument tend to suggest that freedom of expression can't be a license to insult religious communities. Swaminathan disagrees quite bluntly
"The fact is that every religion is an insult to somebody. The Hindu scriptures and dharma shastras unquestionably insult lower castes, women, and foreigners (who are called mlechhas, on par with untouchables). The Bible is an insult to Jews, who from the start were appalled by Christ’s claim to be a Messiah. Mohammed’s claim to be a prophet is similarly insulting to Christians. Hindus are called heathen and kaffirs respectively by Christians and Muslims, and both are insulting terms. Can the answer be for people from all religions and castes to attack and maim one another? Liberal atheists like me hold freedom of expression to be sacred, and tolerance of opposing views to be a fundamental duty. Our religion says that we can and do insult one another all the time in various ways. You can and should object when you feel insulted, I certainly do so. But the duty of tolerance means you cannot use violence or revenge as a means of protests: you should find other ways."

Rajeev Dhawan has a fine line of distinction on the issue. He concludes
"While espousing the case for an individualist right of free speech, we are not entirely liberated from the responsibility of collective governance in a fair and just manner. This is not an invitation to extreme forms of censorship. But, it does mean that the collective conscience does not have to be silent. Censor minimally, but condemn forcefully. It is part of free speech to meet irresponsible free speech with responsible condemnation."

Another interesting point of view from SHIV VISVANATHAN is on the thinking of the "two sides" of this debate. He comments in the Times of India"The cartoon controversy reminds one of a schizmogeretic situation........ The debate has been deluged with editorials. We have essays on freedom of press, on profundity of faith, on why secular citizenship can’t yield to ethnic pressure. Analysis of this kind operates within fixed frames. Firstly, it is read consciously as a clash of religions particularly of Islam and Christianity. Secondly, it is seen as irrational faith confronting liberal secularism. ........There is an implication that Islam is Third World and ethnic and suffering from a touch of inferiority or defeat. Alternatively, the liberal West is projected as mature, superior and content within the rule of law. The opposition becomes one of identity politics Vs citizenship, law Vs vigilantism and reason Vs obscurantism."

It doesn’t take a Chomsky to realise that the western press can be hypocritical ...... But it takes wisdom to see that freedom and hypocrisy go together. The cartoons reflect Orientalism at its worst. But freedom of press is part of a large vision of democracy and the current situation will benefit neither side. If France, England and Germany want to survive as democracies, they must rework their liberalism to understand that they are not homogeneous societies but multiethnic, multireligious and multicultural societies which have to go beyond tolerance as disengagement to plurality as engagement. Islamic groups must also realise that freedom and faith will feed on each other and Europe might produce a new and creative variant of Islam like India and Indonesia did."

Some observations
There is a consensus (atleast among the intelligensia) that the violent reactions to the cartoons (allegedly from the muslims) is unacceptable in a civilian society

However - the world seems to be divided on the question of what constitutes free speech and how much of it should be allowed. Should it be absolute or moderate sensorship is actually needed? Should free speech be redefined at least in a context where sensibilities of larger masses is involved?

In this context can pornography (specially the explicit and some times psychic ones), hate speeches and writings and also targetted maligning campaigns be considered exercising of free speech. An example is the suicide by a student of IIM-Lucknow who died trying out a variety of method of hanging that he read about on a website. Could such incidences be handled better by a minimal censoring.

It is OK to talk of freedom to express as an absolute right in the world of journalism and that of bloggers, however the real world is different - however much we reject this theory. No right is actually absolute. One can talk of rights being absolute only in the world where people understand and live by their duties. In this sense itself ANY right cannot remain absolute. The day I decide not to care about my duties and just assert my rights as absolute I become a problem (for the society and for those who espouse this philosophy). That is what is wrong with freedom of expression as an absolute right.

Coloured Ways of Life

Came across this absolutely great piece through chain mails that circulate in few groups of which I am a member. I do not know the name of the author.

According to the mail "This poem was nominated poem of 2005 for the best poem, written by an African.........amazing thought!!!"

When I born, I Black,
When I grow up, I Black,
When I go in Sun, I Black,
When I scared, I Black,
When I sick, I Black,
And when I die, I still black..

And you White fella,
When you born, you Pink,
When you grow up, you White,
When you go in Sun, you Red,
When you cold, you Blue,
When you scared, you Yellow,
When you sick, you Green,
And when you die, you Gray..

And you calling me Colored ?????????

The greatness of the stuff lies in the simplicity with which it makes a severe impact on once thoughts. There is a sort of innocence in the way its written - like its written by a hurt child. The hurt is so plainly put that it disarms. I am sure poets don't write such stuff - its natural.

Media War : Naidunia v/s Dainik Bhaskar

Recently, I witnessed a launch function of a new business daily in Indore. The English business newspaper DNAMoney is a publication of the Dainik Bhaskar group. Dainik Bhaskar started from Indore approximately two decades ago and today they enjoy the largest circulation in India for their flagship publication Dainik Bhaskar - a hindi daily newspaper which claims to have a readership which more than that of the times of India.

It is interesting to see the way the media scene is hotting up in MP - specially in Indore. Indore alone must be home to at least a score of news papers - a few eveningers - some of them with impressive circualtions and readership. However the two big name reamins Nai Dunia and Dainik Bhaskar. The ND & DB story is a case study in management.

Naidunia is a paper with a rich history & it still remains (in the minds of people) as a scholarly paper with its comparatively puerile approach to langaugae (hindi), only moderate instincts to sensationalise and one must add, a very high quality of printing.

While Dainik Bhaskar has remained a more bol-chal ki bhasha wala (layman language) paper. So it uses english words written in Hindi with absolutely no compunction. Naidunia used to mock at this style of journalism (although now ND follows this style as well). This helped DB reach out to larger base of people reading it. So here it is - market driven v/s academic orientation. In the free economy that India is now - Dainik Bhaskar - who most admit - is not necessarily a better paper grew leaps & bound because it was a better marketer, quite like the Times of India.

Localisation
The Dainik Bhaskar group has to its credit some great innovations that made it widely read. The amount of localisation of news it has done is amazing. It currently prints 14 editions of Dainik Bhaskar (3 in MP, 2 in Chattisgarh, 7 in Rajasthan, one each in Chandigarh & Haryana) - not to talk of a local page in almost every small town like Mandasaur, Neemuch, Ujjain, Jabalpur etc. etc. Ofcourse it has a National version of paper that circulates in the metro cities & towns. Add to this Divya Bhaskar - The Gujarati version of the paper circulated in Gujarat which has four editions. This is what makes this group bigger - & fastest growing. Its very similar to what a mc-donalds does to its menu in every region - cater to the taste of people their. Naidunia on the other hand did whatever regionalisation driven by market compulsions - when DB seemed to have edged it out in competition. So now you have the Gwalior edition of Naidunia which seemed to have done rather well.

Distribution
Talk to anybody in the business of media & they will confirm that managing your distribution channels is the key. Make it available everywhere - & fast. DB started doing that right from the start. DB started selling at every nook & corner of the city, at bus stands, in trains using hawkers and not necessarily just on the book shops. It was pushed with invitation pricing in many areas to get a quick foothold. The group went out of its way to keep their distributors happy. Hawkers in Indore recall the days when Naidunia was the only paper that sold. They had to line up to beg, borrow, steal to get their needed number of copies.

Managing Advertising Revenues
DB recognised this very early. It aggressively pursued advertisers. Even today if their is an ad that appears in Naidunia - which does not have a presence in Dainik Bhaskar - one is sure to get a call from a Dainik Bhaskar executive asking why they chose ND over them. Ofcourse he will sell furtively the reach and response one is expected to get from Dainik Bhaskar. He will then ask when will he get the same ad. This alacrity with which they pursue their advertisers has kept them very high in the minds of advertisers - you can love them or hate them but cannot ignore them.

More importantly - Dainik Bhaskar maintained sound relationship with the most important link - the advertising agencies. One of my senior frinds in the business of advertising at Indore comments "serves Naidunia right" recalling how in the days of monopoly they were treated by the Naidunia management indifferently. "You will be invited once a year to a gathering of all advertising agencies where Abhayji (the chief editor and owner of Naidunia) will deliver a lecture & you will be served Samosa with Wafers and tea. No interaction at all"

The royal treatment received by advertising agencies at the hands of Dainik Bhaskar thus ensured that they became the preferred target for referrals by the agencies.

Events Marketing
Dainik Bhaskar also started the trend of creating marketing events regularly to bring about brand excitement among readers. They followed twin model of conducting some major events of their own and then in most cases offering major media partnership to event managment companies and conducting the event under their flag.

Innovations abound here : heavy discounting schemes, great prizes schemes, events - like bollywood stars shows (Madhuri/sharukh), career fairs etc. etc.

Why Naidunia then
You might be wondering if everything above is true why is Naidunia still its competitor. Well may reasons - first Newspaper unlike other products takes long to build into the psyche of the reader and also they change their tastes gradually. For long Dainik Bhaskar remained a news paper with good circulation because of the marketing aggression but not good resership. Readers are the people Dainik Bhaskar targeted the last. It is only now focussing on better content and highly readable material and print. These were always the seeling prepositions of Naidunia.

The same can be said of Naidunia - they have started to learn management from their competitors & now focuses more than ever before on direct marketing and every other thing that got DB the celebrated success. It also took Naidunia lot of time and market share to give up on its attitude of being the suerior paper.

Random Thought
Marketing warfare has turned the media into business and hence journalism is lost its core value as profession. Newspapers (& channels) have today become a Fast Moving Consumer Good. One remembers a widely circulated thought that chairman of Bennet & Coleman gave about The Times of India - we are not a great newspaper - we are just great marketers.

Competition for a change seems to have left the consumer with average products.