It is a self-defeating exercise for an ombudsman to plan
his year-end column in advance. Last month, I had an opportunity to
read excerpts from singer T.M. Krishna’s
A Southern Music: The Karnatik Story
and felt that it opened up space for interrogating not only our
classical musical tradition but raised a few questions about how our
media reports and reflects on culture and performing arts. Indian media
in general, and
The Hindu
in particular, is good at covering events and providing reviews. But,
this body of work does not translate into rigorous critical evaluation.
The original idea for the year-end column was to identify the factors
that prevent our reviews from becoming an erudite tour de force.
But,
I never imagined that a contribution from a reader to “Open Page” would
lay siege to my plans. My office was flooded with letters following the
publication of the piece, “It is ‘nurture against nature’” by Dr.
Mohana Krishnaswamy. Social media was hyperactive. In the ensuing din,
many seem to have overlooked the newspaper’s principled stand on Section
377 of the Indian Penal Code.
Readers react
Before
getting into the details, let me share excerpts from some letters.
Murali Shanmugavelan, a scholar from School of Oriental and African
Studies, London, wrote: “I was shocked to read a hostile, ill-informed,
unscientific and an unkind (to humanity) piece. Frankly I (disclaimer: a
heterosexual) am speechless where to start my views against this
bigotry. Thus, the outrage against this piece in social media, including
Facebook and Twitter, is very well understandable. She not only mocks
and criminalises the sensibilities of gay communities (around the world)
but also sadly suggests that the intolerance (against the so-called au
naturel) is acceptable. Dr. Mohana connects, without any scientific
temper and evidence, Darwin’s theory of selection and Eugenics to
propose criminalisation of Sec 377. Does she not know being gay is
another real possibility in this real world? Hasn’t she read about the
homosexuality practices in the animal kingdom? Will she apply Section
377 only to humans or the entire planet, I am curious to know?”
He
does not stop there. He further raises a relevant question by pointing
out a truly shocking sentence in the article: “If Hitler erred in
correcting the human population by inhuman methods of eugenics, the idea
of encouraging homosexuality...” and asked whether the author proposed
another genocide in the name of sexual orientation?
His questions to the Readers’ Editor were: “I understand Dr. Mohana is entitled to her views but should
The Hindu
not have checked factual inaccuracies, of a topic that is highly sensitive and political? Why can’t we blame
The Hindu
for promoting bigotry by allowing an article that is factually and
scientifically inaccurate? Can the rules of media pluralism and diverse
perspectives be bent to promote intolerance and inaccurate (a kind of
perspective, after all) information and opinion?”
Dr.
Yogesh, a neonatologist from Bangalore, came up with a point-by-point
rebuttal and questioned the proposition that homosexuality is a “nurture
versus nature phenomenon.” Another reader, Raghu Karnad, wrote: “I’m
using my words carefully when I describe the piece as garbled
homophobia. In fact, the content of the piece is too far below any
standard worth countering at any length … Its writer mixes poisonous
pseudoscience, false logic, and a weird, wild-eyed invocation of
eugenics, to weigh in on a current news topic that strikes at the rights
and safety of millions of Indians. It is also full of typos, indicating
how much oversight it received.”
The reactions from
the readers are both legitimate and valid. It was an error in judgment
on the part of the editor of Open Page, rather than any design on his
part, to have this article published. The idea of Open Page is to extend
the pages of this newspaper to articulate readers to express their
opinions on a range of issues. It not only brings in new details but
also explores areas that are often overlooked by the regular opinion
writers. It is a site for new voices.
The Editor’s
Note on December 24, 2013, clearly states that submissions on the Open
Page are the extended comments of readers and in no way do they reflect
the views of
The Hindu
. The newspaper, indeed, took a critical stand against the apex court
ruling and even a cursory reading of the following articles will give an
idea of what the newspaper stands for: “A retrograde decision,” an
Editorial on December 12, 2013; “Going against the tide of history,” by
Siddharth Dube on December 16, 2013; “The wrongness of deference” by
Arghya Sengupta on December 16, 2013; “A punitive sexual security
apparatus” by Ratna Kapur; and as late as December 24, 2013 it carried
“The legislative court” by Tarunabh Khaitan. In this context, I believe,
it is unfair to draw larger conclusions based on one misjudgment.
Comments
Post a Comment