Source: IMPHAL FREE PRESS
Different kinds of silences plague any discussion on sensitive social issues in Manipur today. Certain areas of social discourses are simply out of bounds of ordinary mortals. If at all they decide to enter these forbidden zones, they must tread with utmost care and discretion so as not to land in trouble. Self-censorship out of love for ones life and limbs, coupled with a basic intellectual lethargy has meant the reduction of all important debates to a virtual sham, or else a one-sided campaign, depriving their conclusions, resolutions and recommendations of a great deal of intellectual and moral legitimacy that only a free discourse can give. Why only debates, even public voices of outrage are muted conspicuously. All the placards and banners at the increasing number of protest dharnas against extortion demands and physical aggressions for instance have seldom done much more than complain of being victimised, with nobody daring to name who victimised them. The only times protests are vociferously articulate is when the target of anger is the government and government forces. Apart from the demonstration as to which institution is more liberal or which fits the definition of being oppressive more, what is also betrayed is a pathetic state of helpless petrification our society is living in.
Leave this enforced state of silence be for the time being, for a lot has already been said of it by very many people. But there are also other silences in matters pertaining to socially relevant issues, and this time not imposed by any external circumstances but by internal prejudices. In these cases, it is a question of omission made either wilfully, but as is more often the case, unconsciously. The first is sinister and deserves outright condemnation, but the second is a result of a lack of sensitivity and remedy is a sensitising programme. This is also where advocacy is called for. In the second category may belong the much talked about and criticised silence of the national media about issues of the Northeast. A national psyche that has given little focus to the region is what is reflected unwittingly. At the individual level, few, if any, journalists and editors profess wilful neglect of the Northeast, but unconsciously the neglect always comes to play. There is of course also the other aspect to the problem that has to do with the dictates of the market which have come to sway most media organisations in the present commercialised world, and since the northeast does not command enough advertisement value, it fails to attract owner attention even if journalists are willing. Media houses are also businesses, and owners almost without exception are closer to business managers than editors. In provincial media such as ours, where the business volumes are nothing to be awed about, this dichotomy is not as pronounced. Small is indeed beautiful sometimes.
But this subconscious omission happens at many other levels. Deliberate or no, the result is injustice in varying degrees. In a recent seminar on AIDS organised jointly by the Kolkata American Centre, All Manipur Working Journalists Union and the Manipur AIDS Control Society, a speaker mentioned a macho Hollywood celebrity, the late Rock Hudson, who died of AIDS in the 1980s bringing the AIDS issue, which many at the time shunned, into sharper focus. What the speaker was silent about was, the actor was a self-professed homosexual. There are a number of Western celebrities who were homosexual and died of AIDS, to name just two Greg Louganis, Olympics perfect 10 diver in both the spring and high board diving, and Freddy Mercury, lead singer of the rock band Queen. Basketballer Michael (Magic) Johnson had AIDS and Wimbledon champion Arthur Ashe died of AIDS, although they were not homosexuals. The moot point is, homosexuality is an uncomfortable fact of life, and as we all know they are here to stay in any given society and will be there no matter who is not pleased. The other fact is, homosexuals are prone to HIV/AIDS, hence no matter how uncomfortable it may be, any discussion of AIDS campaign strategy will remain incomplete if this problem is not acknowledged. Omitting them from our consciousness is in this sense at once an injustice and an embrace of falsity on the altar of social and political correctness.
Different kinds of silences plague any discussion on sensitive social issues in Manipur today. Certain areas of social discourses are simply out of bounds of ordinary mortals. If at all they decide to enter these forbidden zones, they must tread with utmost care and discretion so as not to land in trouble. Self-censorship out of love for ones life and limbs, coupled with a basic intellectual lethargy has meant the reduction of all important debates to a virtual sham, or else a one-sided campaign, depriving their conclusions, resolutions and recommendations of a great deal of intellectual and moral legitimacy that only a free discourse can give. Why only debates, even public voices of outrage are muted conspicuously. All the placards and banners at the increasing number of protest dharnas against extortion demands and physical aggressions for instance have seldom done much more than complain of being victimised, with nobody daring to name who victimised them. The only times protests are vociferously articulate is when the target of anger is the government and government forces. Apart from the demonstration as to which institution is more liberal or which fits the definition of being oppressive more, what is also betrayed is a pathetic state of helpless petrification our society is living in.
Leave this enforced state of silence be for the time being, for a lot has already been said of it by very many people. But there are also other silences in matters pertaining to socially relevant issues, and this time not imposed by any external circumstances but by internal prejudices. In these cases, it is a question of omission made either wilfully, but as is more often the case, unconsciously. The first is sinister and deserves outright condemnation, but the second is a result of a lack of sensitivity and remedy is a sensitising programme. This is also where advocacy is called for. In the second category may belong the much talked about and criticised silence of the national media about issues of the Northeast. A national psyche that has given little focus to the region is what is reflected unwittingly. At the individual level, few, if any, journalists and editors profess wilful neglect of the Northeast, but unconsciously the neglect always comes to play. There is of course also the other aspect to the problem that has to do with the dictates of the market which have come to sway most media organisations in the present commercialised world, and since the northeast does not command enough advertisement value, it fails to attract owner attention even if journalists are willing. Media houses are also businesses, and owners almost without exception are closer to business managers than editors. In provincial media such as ours, where the business volumes are nothing to be awed about, this dichotomy is not as pronounced. Small is indeed beautiful sometimes.
But this subconscious omission happens at many other levels. Deliberate or no, the result is injustice in varying degrees. In a recent seminar on AIDS organised jointly by the Kolkata American Centre, All Manipur Working Journalists Union and the Manipur AIDS Control Society, a speaker mentioned a macho Hollywood celebrity, the late Rock Hudson, who died of AIDS in the 1980s bringing the AIDS issue, which many at the time shunned, into sharper focus. What the speaker was silent about was, the actor was a self-professed homosexual. There are a number of Western celebrities who were homosexual and died of AIDS, to name just two Greg Louganis, Olympics perfect 10 diver in both the spring and high board diving, and Freddy Mercury, lead singer of the rock band Queen. Basketballer Michael (Magic) Johnson had AIDS and Wimbledon champion Arthur Ashe died of AIDS, although they were not homosexuals. The moot point is, homosexuality is an uncomfortable fact of life, and as we all know they are here to stay in any given society and will be there no matter who is not pleased. The other fact is, homosexuals are prone to HIV/AIDS, hence no matter how uncomfortable it may be, any discussion of AIDS campaign strategy will remain incomplete if this problem is not acknowledged. Omitting them from our consciousness is in this sense at once an injustice and an embrace of falsity on the altar of social and political correctness.
