Between Fact and Fascism: Media and The Age of Outrage

The sheer notion that the creation of re-representations of history is an appropriate reaction to controversy is unequivocally just another rung in the ladder of steady and continual de-democratisation in the country. The tendency for actors in the public sphere to immediately resort to a “Babri-like situation” in times like these incites violence upon the national identity that once sought to steer a geopolitical revolution fueled by innovation and cultural direction. Indeed, to raise one’s voice in a manner opposite to that of mainstream conduct easily invites cruelty in a society such as ours. However, in the words of Romila Thapar, “We don’t speak enough, because we don’t question enough.” Identity materialises from the dissipation of fear to debate, in the acceptance of who we really are.

Aurangzeb’s Tomb and Manufactured Rage

Earlier in the year, with threats to destroy Aurangzeb’s tomb in light of the release of a controversial film, the nation saw once again the reinforcement of nationalistic narratives with the media as its loudspeaker, the narratives which have habitually lacked emotional nuance with regard to India’s complex past. The film ‘Chhaava’portrays the life and times of the son of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, and the second Maratha ruler, Chhatrapati Sambaji Maharaj, both of whom are held in high esteem. The case became problematic when public sentiment, paired with media encouragement, became one that believed the film portrayed an overglorification of Aurangzeb, whose legacy is primarily one of habitual atrocities and oppression towards the Hindu community.

With the emergence of any such debate, there is always an oversimplification of the Hindu-Muslim binary in the media. Discussions take place through a half-shut mouth and censored perspectives. In the case of Aurangzeb’s tomb, the angle that the grave may be a symbol of victory after an era of continual atrocity, as many locals believe it to be, failed to be projected into the mediaspace, that regardless of Aurangzeb’s actions during his lifetime, his tomb was still an important source to understand the complexities of his time in a historical sense.

Peter Ronald DeSouza argues in this context that any individual in the role of a public intellectual as an ‘expositor of falsehood’ fears not only the power of a tyrannical state but also of an intolerant society. That is to say, with the climax in corporate culture, the media is left to serve not just the public, but countless other agencies on which it depends.

The result is the construction of a system built on religious fascism, where no one person can distinguish between what is real and what is not, where individuality is polarised, and opinions are integrated into an increasingly narrow lens. Limited scholarly interpretations and charged political spectacles in favour of expertise and discourse do not really allow much room for individual opinion formation. It would be helpful to ask in the case of the Aurangzeb tomb, and the countless other religious controversies that came before it, whether erasing historical monuments changes history itself, or buries it deeper and invalidates the intricacies of India’s memory.

We live in echo chambers of distracted judgment, where we are told everything from what to think about to how to think about it. Media no longer exists for the sole purpose of information dissemination, but plays a more multidimensional role of courtroom, facilitator of public opinion, and amplifier for political interests integrated together. It is interesting to note how mainstream public discourse has essentially transformed into a spokesperson for the colonial ideology that thrives inherently on communal conflict, one that should have been abandoned with the onset of independence itself. The traces of colonial thought that still exist in nationalistic mindsets contaminate the integrity of the institution itself, making it a far more extremist one than it needs to be.

From Babri to COVID - A Pattern of Cyclic Blame

If the media and the government can communalise even a global tragedy like the COVID pandemic, there are not many lengths that it won’t go to reinforce a fundamentally redundant point. Cries against “corona jihad” and the Tablighi Jamaat drowned out media coverage and public support for hundreds of migrant workers who died of hunger, and the rebranding of the police force as “corona warriors” de-emphasised the part that police brutality played in this crisis. There is no doubt that the police force is an integral unit in the manifestation of the state’s power. However, this fact does not even begin to justify lapses in media accountability and the fueling of misleading narratives that continue to saturate the media space to such an extent that it has now become the unfortunate norm. This instance is not the first time the term ‘jihad’ has been used as a tool by the media to propagate an arguably misinterpreted ideology, one which many Indian muslims have been known not to identify with in the first place. ‘Rail jihad’ emerged after the 2023 Odisha train crash, ‘land jihad’ after discussions on land reforms in Kashmir, and even the communalization of economic behaviour through ‘economic jihad’.

This continuous pattern of cyclic communal blame in light of controversy reinforces not only the obstruction of critical public intellectualism but also the potential for government censure, which is perhaps the foundation of a healthy and functioning democracy. This cycle benefits the media because they can capitalise on public sentiment, and the government because it allows for the mobilisation of their narrative, but consumers of this media are left misinformed, disarmed of any information of substance, and confused inside an increasingly and excessively overflowing mountain of content, where the real question or matter is buried beneath.

The essence of this piece is embedded in the inability of an emotionally charged Indian mainstream media to clearly and critically evaluate the influences of correct factors in its analysis of national circumstances. Our national identity is much more than an echo of a violent past; it is one of cultural resilience in the face of dematerialisation and the potential of a state confident in its integrity. It is a callback to the existence of Vir Das’s ‘Two Indias’, where ‘men in suits’ still direct what we think, and those who dare call it out are removed from the spotlight. As hegemonic forces dominate every sphere—from laughter to markets to imagination—those who refuse to conform and publicly question this order are consistently vilified. Whether it be through Kunal Kamra’s and Munawar Faruqui’s comedy, Anurag Kashyap’s perception of film in this matter, or Prabhat Patnaik’s views on deligitimisation of public dissent, smarter and more credible voices deserve an unapologetic public platform.

Call For a Resurrection of Reason

At a time when tensions in the geopolitical arena are at an all-time high, the stock market is destabilizing, when Trump’s policies have the potential to gravely affect India’s GDP and economy, atrocities against women show no sign of slowing down, is it finally not time to switch over to reasonable discourse and to focus on what really matters?

The extent of this media reign stretches beyond borders to create an ‘international marketplace for hate’. With current world affairs leading to the resurgence of ‘white supremacy’ and anti-semitism across the US and Europe, and engagement-driven, algorithm-based platforms unfailing to prioritise such content, there is no doubt a global reworking of media guidelines is needed. Modern, as well as traditional media, is evolving rapidly and radically in response to technological, geopolitical, and attitudinal shifts, and so should we.

Strategies of distraction and deceit in efforts to shepherd public consciousness have only brought the world into a situation where the masses are bred into political puppetry, and competency is disillusioned by exclusion. Every time there is a challenge, narratives are spun around the communal agenda to hide inefficiencies in the system, and it works because the media is backed by the political power it needs to enforce it. Lack of accountability in this regard has begotten a duplicitous system that does not hesitate to transgress journalistic ideals, that of integrity and commitment to public security. Hate speech, in the form of stereotypical assumptions or otherwise, runs free in every evening bulletin, and any trending issue is overwhelmingly sensationalised. At the same time, rape cases, communal conflict, and the truth remain unrevealed to the masses. Fear and insecurity are propagated to fuel the death of traditional journalism, which operates now only to attract viewers and not to educate them, a glorious destruction indeed.

In an ideal conceptualisation, there is a reformation of practice at three levels. Disputes and complications in the national forum no longer become matters of media trials, but of public intellectualism, handled with a practical and knowledgeable approach to policy and debate.

Moreover, at the government level, a sense of accountability towards lapses in governance will only strengthen its democratic nature. Both the media and the public play a non-negotiable role in the accomplishment of this goal, to deny distraction in any form.

It is a fact that India breeds millions of brilliant minds, but only for them to be constantly invalidated in the public sphere. It is time that reasonable and professional discourse finally becomes the principal force in driving Bharat Mata’s journey to discovering her rightful modern political identity, and that citizens are the principal force behind it.