Pakistan polls, another copy-paste story

Raju Korti
Elections and referendums in Pakistan are a watershed for traditionally wrong reasons. As India's estranged progeny goes to another election tomorrow, there are rising apprehensions whether power will be transferred from one civilian government to another. I say that because this is a freak scenario for the country in its 70 years of turbulent existence. Between and behind successive governments, the Army has played the ventriloquist with its proven flourish.
For a country with more than 200 million people, Pakistan continues to grapple with its animation in a land constantly trapped in war compass. Having sacrificed every bearing of national progress in a frenzy to acquire nuclear weapons out of its India-phobia, Pakistan seems mired in perennial confusion about safety at home or security from perceived external threats. There have been enough indications in the past that the country's incompatibility towards itself is much less than its antipathy towards the US and India.
The pro-democracy euphoria that precedes every election in Pakistan evaporates with suppression of information, maneuverings by the military and rise in religious fundamentalism. That is bizarre when you consider that it is a nation without any pluralism. I have been making out a case that Pakistan will get crushed under the weight of its own problems. The war drums that the country keeps beating periodically is a silly but time-tested rhetoric to divert its own attention from issues at home towards those that they claim from their perceived enemies. The killing of more than 150 civilians in the run up to tomorrow's elections is ample testimony.
Eking out a desperate subsistence from the mess it has created for itself in all these years, its politics has routinely toggled between elected governments and army dictatorships. It is not my case to tell you that none of the prime ministers has ever completed his or her tenure, but this time round the Army has bent backwards to nudge out the earlier party -- Nawaz Shari's Pakistan Muslim League (PML) and to pack its patriarch to political oblivion. For cricketer-turned politician and thrice married Imran Khan, it is now or never. Although his latest ex-wife has been using every possible brush to paint her husband as a compulsive philanderer, Khan's political fortunes have been rising steadily since he petitioned the country's supreme court to disqualify Sharif on corruption charges.
Some of the methods that Khan has used to promote himself are not exactly honorable even if you concede that politics is a game of scoundrels. He has been polarizing people with a poisoned-tongue campaign. In an earlier blog, I had written how Khan balances between religious dogma and liberal economy to pander to contrasting audiences. The Oxford-educated cricketer has transitioned from a compulsive playboy past when he partied with the likes of Mick Jagger to now denouncing the Westoxified Pakistani liberals. It is fairly evident that he has so far successfully manipulated the military in his ambitious quest to ascend the prime ministerial throne.
In political terms, Khan has a number of incentives to seek out shortcuts. The black out of supportive media and the defections engineered from PML with the help of the Army are a case in point. Sharif, who has had a roller coaster in Pakistan stands the risk of being eliminated the same way as some of his predecessors. Political turf in Pakistan was never prepared for fair matches.
It is amazing how hope springs up from the most desperate and hopeless situations in Pakistan. In all the manipulative politics, there seems to be a reasonable sense of optimism that the elections would serve as some kind of referendum on the most crucial issues facing the country. That optimism turns into a joke when you finger-count those crucial issues. Pakistan's economy faces the tricky predicament of which way it should be inclined: Western or Chinese. Will the so called democracy under Khan, presuming he become the PM, be robust enough to include or discard extremists, and can the military and the courts be trusted to be impartial and objective? Both have their pitfalls and the answers can be only guessed in a country where instability and conflagration are the only stable factors. So if Pakistan has served as a strategic base for the American forces in Afghanistan, it has also been an obstacle to the same troops  in secretly offering aid and safe harbor to militant groups like Taliban and Al Qaeda.
It would be naive to think that Pakistan's complications are just about regional security. They are more about misgovernance, corruption and environmental stress. The reluctant US ally has done little in curbing Afghan Taliban and other sundry militant groups. It may have turned to China for aid and support but it must realize this will happen with the Chinese extracting their pound of flesh. Already, Pakistan has debts that they look in no position to repay. And that makes both dangerous customers for India and US. All parties contesting the election have grandiose manifestos promising voters the moon but political bottom line is the running feud between PML and the Army. Sharif's future seems fairly predictable at this stage but Khan would be deluding himself that the field is clear for him. His problems will start when he is voted to power.
That Pakistan has always lent itself to status quo is loud and clear from its history. Either its politicians don't understand or love to play suicidal games.

Of hugs and winks

Raju Korti

If hug changes the metabolism of a person, I do not know what happened to Rahul Gandhi's when he walked up to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to give him one during the no-confidence motion on Friday. But for someone who should make it to the record books for hugging as a symbol of  international diplomacy, I am sure it did something to Modi, having been at the receiving end himself. Rahul took the craft to the next level by following it with a wink at his party men.
While that looked like running with the hare and hunting with the hound, I have always believed that a hugs and winks are double-edged weapons. Having lived in a city where people, especially youngsters, hug each other at the drop of a hat; whatever the provocation, I am inclined to believe that hugs and winks have been shafted in society and people either tend to under-estimate or over-estimate them. And that makes them dicey gestures because the chemical reaction that results from both can be unpredictable.
In my 62 years of nothing-to-rave-about existence, I have realized that for many, hugging is a mere figure of speech. People who claim to love being hugged are often found to squirm when they get one. Winking is even more unpredictable. It can invite a genuine chuckle or a tight slap. Since discretion is better part of valor, I prefer the old-fashioned "Namaste" which is as safe as it can get. That sense of wisdom dawned on me when I was barely 14. I had hugged my aunt and she gave me such a scandalized look that thereafter I never summoned the courage to hug even those of my own gender. The safest thing to do is to allow yourself to be hugged than taking the liberty of doing it yourself.
I have never winked at anyone even in jest. In my college days, I had once blinked because a pebble had hit my eye and a pretty young thing around thought I was winking at her. Mercifully, it just ended with the lady giving me a dirty look and walking away. Once bitten always shy. Since then, my world of winking has remained restricted to sleeping. I often wonder if people winked in real life as much as they do in text messages this world would be really a creepy place. But I am prepared to make concession for a hug being better than a message.
Rahul proved that peace is only available to those who want it, and only possible to those who will hug their enemy to enjoy it. Little wonder then that Modi was stumped by Rahul's googly and could respond with an embarrassed smile and a pat on the latter's back. The lesson for Modi here is hug others before they hug you and wrest a diplomatic initiative. To be fair to Modi, he has done well for himself with all those bear hugs. The winks should come for free. The debate about the propriety of what Rahul did in the august house therefore should become redundant.
With due apologies to my lyricist friend Amit Khanna's song from Dev Anand's 1978 film:
"Hug to har dum, khushiyan ya gham".
There was Raj Kapoor who made "Jaagte Raho" in 1956. Some day in future I propose to make "Hug-te Raho". If you think the word has been used in dirty sense, you have a soiled mind.

Some thoughts about the Trump-Kim summit

Raju Korti

The shape of the good byes to come?

While "neutral" Singapore hosts two of the most quixotic leaders of our times in what can be mildly described as facetious, the optimism exuded by US President Donald Trump and North Korean Kim Jong-un is a remarkable red herring.
That the high stakes one-on-one has been preceded by some tricky negotiations comes as no surprise. I am not too sure how the under-chandelier dinner Trump had with Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong can contribute to the easing of stand off between the the two traditional foes.
Not just Trump and Kim, the world knows that entente is next to impossible. Both are not known to climb off their high horse.The issue of denuclearisation and security guarantee, and the measures to be taken by both the countries are in the realms of utopia given the insecurity they face from each other. A nuclear armament is both a safeguard and a threat depending on one's perception. There is little to be optimistic for both Trump and Kim since it is not clear -- at least at this stage -- whether the Americans can succeed in extracting a more comprehensive commitment to disarming than North Korea has already offered.
Note that the White House has chosen to speak the same couched Pyongyang language of "seeking complete verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation on the Korean Peninsula. The North Koreans are not fools to be taken in by those apparently pompous words. They know it as potentially requiring the US to scale back troop deployment there or to shrink its nuclear umbrella over two East Asian allies South Korea and Japan. Little wonder, the meet is so terse that Trump doesn't feel the need to stay around longer, although that is also being interpreted as the US dropping subtle hints of pressure on Kim. The fact is there is little for them to talk.
Make no mistake. Kim's move to announce moratorium on testing nuclear weapons and tear down some of the infrastructure related to those programmes may well turn out to be a hogwash. For those who think that this is a sign of goodwill, it must be told that this doesn't impact in any way the huge weapons complex the country has assembled in the last decades.
The American administration knows that debilitating Pyongyang's sprawling missile and nuclear arsenal will take one hell of an effort and years. There is simply no precedent in the history that any nation that has amassed such a huge stockpile of nukes has ever given it up. The logistics and economics just don't reconcile to the very idea of denuclearisation. Trump's avowed goal of a "verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation" is at best flimsy and fractured. The Americans got to live with North Korea's ability to target the US with nuclear weapons just as India has got to with Pakistan.
Any deal would most certainly call for inspection of nuke sites by international inspectors who may have to look at the herculean prospect of visiting an unspecified number if compliance is to be ensured. That is a tall order for any country with the honorable exception of Iraq. North Korea is a different league not just because of its dangerous acquisitions by an unpredictable and dangerous dictator but also because the country is so isolated from the rest of the mankind.
The Kim dispensation -- if it can be called that -- has relentlessly pursued its military goal to unleash a nuclear strike on US and its allies South Korea and Japan with an array of missiles and bombs. A series of Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile programmes has had the Americans and its East Asian allies in jitters for, the threat perception is too high for even their capabilities.
The Americans would be making a cardinal error if they perceive the North Korean moratorium as a parameter of their optimism. Any attempt to legitimize the North Korean capability by accepting the status quo as a situation to proceed for normalization of relations, knowing the country's track record of pursuing nuclear weapons program, would be fatuous.
The only indication that Americans are aware of this reality is Trump booking his return ticket the same day.   

Some musings about Bill Clinton and MeToo

Raju Korti

The "other woman" in his life.

It has been 23 years since former US President first unzipped his pants in what many voyeuristically describe as Sexgate. It is not altogether surprising that former US President Bill Clinton has gone on the defensive about his affair with the then 21-year-old White House intern in the wake of the MeToo movement. Clinton, then 49, escaped charges of perjury and was almost impeached, leaving behind an outraged nation and a wife who made light of her mental bruises.
I have little doubt that Harold Robbins would have delighted to author the Clinton-Lewinsky affair given its lurid and pulpy trappings. Such was the heat generated by the scandal that in 1998 I recall it had become a chewing gum for even school-going children. I am not sure between Clinton and Lewinsky who was hounded more at the time but after seeing the pictures of the chubby-ish intern, a lot many people were envious with Clinton than being offended by his sexual misdemeanors that lasted three years.
Clinton initially was all bravado, denying sexual relations with Lewinsky but his bluff was called by Linda Tripp, the whistle-blower civil servant who tripped him with all those damning audiotapes. Finding that kind of publicity too hot to handle, Lewinsky largely kept to herself until she wrote the tell-all story. She is now believed to be an ardent votary of cyberbullying and how to make the internet more compassionate. While Clinton has chosen not to make much of that sordid past, Lewinsky's response has been a terse MeToo after Tripp chose to describe her as one lacking the moral compass. When her husband broke her confidence, wife Hillary did what even Indian women with utmost orthodox conditioning would not have done -- she went into an overdrive discrediting all the women who came forward and calling the intern a loony narcissist. Her argument that her marriage with Bill had seen more happy days than sad ones euphemistically meant that she had taken her husband's flings in her stride but the pain in her eyes said everything.
That Clinton used the perks of his political office to lure women was evident. He was also involved with Paula Jones, a state worker who unsuccessfully sued him but the intriguing part of this chapter was the American President paid her a huge amount of money in an out-of-court settlement but never apologized as he did with Lewinsky. The White House intern took his pants off in every sense.
As the editor-in-charge of the Indian Express that night, I recall my colleagues breathing down my neck to know more about the scandal that involved the world's most powerful man. Analyses and conjectures flew thick and fast as the story broke but the full implications started sinking in when our (then) Washington correspondent Chidanand Rajghatta (earlier the resident editor of Mumbai edition of the Indian Express) sent in a series of stories in what could be described as consolation for Harold Robbins. It was a cud irresistible to chew. As expected the discussion centered more on voyeuristic than the political implications the issue entailed. People in the newsroom seemed more envious than being scandalized.
Imagine if the Clinton-Lewinsky affair had taken place, say thirty years before. His infidelity may have squired out anyhow but the case would have ended up differently. There would have been no internet or blogosphere to keep the topic raging, no forensic team in place to conduct a DNA test, maybe Tripp would not have had the access to then relatively new idea of using voice recordings as evidence and Saturday Night Live hadn't got around to making comedy out of political events.
History made it sure that the Bill Clinton scandal was poised at the perfect confluence of moments for technology, science, the press and popular culture to build a case against a bluffing politician that would change national precedents forever.
There is nothing wrong in America that cannot be cured with is right in America, Bill Clinton once said. Unwittingly, he became its own mascot.   

Monumental absurdity

Raju Korti

The Indian political mind seems besieged with conspiracy theories. To such absurd and incongruous levels this discourse has gone that we have become experts in creating a controversy where none exists.The agitation and heart-burn on the historic Red Fort taken up for adoption by a private sector group is yet another in that long and apparently unending list. One doesn't have to scour modern history books to know that the Red Fort is an emblem of the country's pride and honor. Successive prime ministers have been addressing the country -- for whatever worth their salt -- on the Independence Day each year. Ritual though it may be, it still is part of the national consciousness. The wrangling over this monument being "sold out" is stupid and deserves to be dismissed with the disdain it deserves.With time, this red bastion has suffered degeneration and merited a face-lift but as is our wont, yet another non-issue has succumbed to public trial that is completely misplaced. To begin with, it is not a sell-out as the chest beating from some quarters shows. The question of selling this national heritage site cannot come to the most puerile of minds.
Criticism on the issue, if any, should relate to the unwitting and tacit admission of the government in failing to upkeep , maintain and preserve this Gothic structure. The place also calls for better crowd management system.
Right when the corporate sector was accused of bleeding public money, it was awakened to what is understood as Corporate Social Responsibility. Ever since the rise of private sector in the post-1991 liberalization and reforms era, we have been educated on the private sector efficiency in boosting economy, job generation and project execution better than their public sector counterparts. Conceding that there are exceptions to public sector inertia, it is still worthwhile to give the "Adopt a Heritage" scheme due thought. The refurbishing of the Red Fort costing Rs 25 crores over the next five years can be a model beginning.
Considering that the Red Fort is the badge of independence struggle the nation wears on its sleeves, one hopes that the government does not mess up this exemplary move by commercializing it and holds the company to the promises it has made. The redevelopment blueprint envisages better public amenities, illumination, sound shows and tourist services and this brief should not be exceeded to deflower its maidenhood.
While companies complain that the Corporate Social Responsibility obligations mandated in the Companies Act are hidden tax and outsources government's social sector responsibilities, projects around such monuments are also brand building opportunities because of prominent visibility and large footfalls. Unlike governments in India that have been by and large indifferent to civic failures, Corporates will hopefully do better if only to stave off adverse publicity for the brand.
If private investment can strengthen national heritage conservation, create a sensible pool of conservationists and increased tourism, the decision is worth going ahead.
Senseless to crib and complain if this antiquated piece of architecture is getting a make-over in tune with its royal existence. But what can you expect when controversy sells more than wisdom? 

A few thoughts about Impeachment

Raju Korti

The bubbling cauldron of Indian politics has thrown up many dirty tricks over the years. Few moves, however, can match the diabolical nature of the attempt to remove the Supreme Court Chief Justice from office. You do not have to be aligned with any party ideology to understand that it is a bid to politicize the highest seat of Indian judiciary and a cynical ploy to influence the outcome of a few politically sensitive cases.
Now that the Vice President Venkaiah Naidu has pulled the plug on the impeachment motion against CJI Dipak Misra, this political discourse may extend to the Congress-led motion challenging the Rajya Sabha Chair in the Supreme Court. In that case, the CJI will have to recuse himself being the bone of contention himself unless political prudence prevails.
That the entire move is politically orchestrated is evident given the manner in which events have unfolded since that duplicitous move by four senior Supreme Court judges who more or less complained the CJI was being partisan in allocating the cases to the bench. In simpler words, they have accused the CJI of arbitrary functioning that they interpret as “misdemeanor”.
For all the transparency that is spoken about in healthy democracies, the functioning of the apex court judges has never gone beyond the clichéd “wrongdoings”. Post the Ramaswamy fiasco in 1992, the Supreme Court revisited the issue of what constituted impeachable conduct on the part of the Judiciary. However, it offered no further light on the matter in that, it only elucidated that mere abrasive conduct on the part of a judge could not be construed to be misbehavior. It discussed the possible implications of the term and alluded it to be similar to the conditions for solicitors. In other words, it talked vaguely of misbehavior as being actions that would make them unworthy of the profession.
The Constitution has provided for the impeachment of judges on the grounds of proven misbehavior.  However, the Constitution has acted in bravado while doing so as there is no mandate till date even by statute as to what constitutes ‘misbehavior’. In other words, the framers had risked the independence of Judiciary subject to any interpretation of ‘proven misbehavior’ by the Legislature. This extremely vague conditionality could have prompted a response which set the limit for judicial impropriety very low and thus, subverted judicial independence. While it could even be argued that keeping an indeterminate meaning did more for the protection of the judiciary, I believe the same approach was counter-productive to the aim of this area of Law as the ambiguous interpretation subjected the judiciary to even more frivolous complaints as there was no clear identification of the conditions to initiate impeachment.
Technically, the Chief Justice of India, like the President of India or for that matter any senior Judge, can be impeached. Article 124 of the Constitution gives the Legislature the power to act as a watchdog and a restraining agency on the Judiciary. But the process is sufficiently complex to ensure that this cannot be done frivolously, and is one of the reasons that impeachment proceedings in the past have failed each time. Not a single Judge has been impeached in India so far.
The complexity of the process is the result why the power has been exercised judiciously by Parliament in the past. It has also, thus, made it sufficiently exclusive to act as a major moral comment against the concerned Judge, even if defeated within Parliament.
There is also the argument that the very move to impeach amounts to major censure as it has been the first such move against a CJI. It will also register a deficit of trust in the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India. The failure to resolve the issue of the roster and the constitution of the benches is the major reason behind the move. However, The CJI is the 'master of roster'. Undoubtedly, the CJI has this power. The CJI has the authority to constitute the benches but under constitutional system every power is coupled with certain responsibilities. The power is required to be exercised not because it exists but for the purpose of achieving public good. You don't exercise the power merely because you have it.
Even if the last, seemingly improbable step in the impeachment motion is cleared, a committee will have to be constituted of one Supreme Court Judge, Chief Justice of a High Court and a distinguished jurist. This committee will then frame definite charges against the judge, in this case the CJI, in question. The Committee will function like a bench and cross examine witnesses if it so wishes.
After it completes the exercise it will submit a report to Parliament. At this stage the Committee can exonerate the Chief Justice as in this case, and the proceedings will be dropped entirely. In case the committee upholds the motion, this will have to be adopted by both Houses of Parliament with a two thirds majority. Even a joint Opposition does not enjoy this majority currently. Besides Parliament can choose not to act even if the committee finds the judge guilty. If this stage is cleared, which it has not been in earlier cases, the President is approached to dismiss the Judge. He can do so only after both the Houses pass the motion in favor of removal. This is improbable, if not impossible.
There is a not very long list of Judges who have faced such action. And a quick look shows that the impeachment proceedings have never really been completed, but at the same time have triggered resignations regardless.
Since there is no precedent in the matter, I wonder if a sitting judge of the Supreme Court can file a defamation case against the MPs should the impeachment motion fail and if he is exonerated from the charges levelled against him.
Parliamentary immunity, also known as legislative immunity, is a system in which members of the Parliament or Legislature are granted partial immunity from prosecution. Before prosecuting, it is necessary that the immunity be removed, usually by a superior court of justice or by the Parliament itself.
Too many ifs and buts but I am inclined to believe that the Constitution is not very clear on this unless there is an impending scenario of a clash between Legislature and Judiciary. A Constitutional deadlock is all that can result.

Fake news: Imagine, convince and sell

Raju Korti

Just as one fretted about how to identify what is termed as fake news, comes the report that fraudsters are out to take the craft to the next higher level with the help of Artificial Intelligence. I have always believed that news is and cannot be fake. It is the people who fabricate it for their vested (political) interests who are fake. The phenomenon has reached such alarming proportions now that even a self-proclaimed veteran like me with 38 years of donkey's experience behind finds it difficult to distinguish between what is real and what is fake.
The ability to make out fake news from the genuine one has created a bigger human conflict than for any other reason in recent times what with the social media queering the pitch in an era of information overkill.
A slow or a slack news day? No interesting stories coming in? Then make up or cook up a story.
That’s exactly what many journalists to do. In recent times, the agenda has been usurped by the common man from professional journalists. Citizen Journalism is a handy licence and the social media being free-for-all playground.
Fakery or fabrication of news is a situation where a journalist cooks up a non-existent story or spices up an otherwise drab or dull story just to create reader interest or for some easy fame or play to his master's tune. It is considered unethical because it compromises with the basic principles of journalism like Truth, Objectivity; and Fairness and Credibility. The disturbing fact is more and more journalists have started resorting to this unfair practice in these commercial times. With social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter becoming huge platforms of public interaction, the trend to misinform and fabricate has only increased.
Part and parcel with that access to technology comes the access to anonymity. All it takes is a basic Word Press URL, some HTML and anyone can have a credible-looking news site ready to post whatever they want. This same anonymity can grant journalists in the business the ability to push fake stories under a pseudonym. The majority of the fake news comes from people who are only too happy to slap their byline on the story for all to see. In fact there seems to be an effort to institutionalize fakery of news with imaginary and cooked up news stories circulated on fakingnews.com and such similar sites.
What prompts some journalists to fabricate news stories? Why are once considered credible news sources spreading stories that are clearly, after two seconds of Googling, untrue?
It’s not always intentional. There is a fabricator out there somewhere -- a ‘hits’ junkie who sits at his screen and watches the view meter tick up as the gullible fall for it. Usually, he is an  enterprising journalist who thinks no one will find out, but often the fake stories that end up circulated go around far beyond the fabricator. At times there are journalists who are loathe to do leg work to get an authentic good story and find an easy way out by fabricating stories conceived by their fertile imagination.
Social media is a huge chunk of technology. Any savvy news website has social media bookmarks hooked directly into their articles pages, so they can be shared instantly. The danger of this is the instant-sharing itself. News can spread instantly. Minutes after a story is posted, it has the ability to be everywhere: Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, and Whatsapp -- a case of rapidly spreading cancer.
Remember that the curse that brings us instant-sharing and fake news stories that look real, also brings you access to Google anywhere you walk. A little research goes a long way in protecting credibility, but research? What's that?
Fake news headlines, stories, articles and posts are everywhere on the World Wide Web and at times, even the most rational thinkers find it difficult to determine what is genuine and what is fabrication. Internet cannot be Gospel Truth. Seeing a story written down in black and white on a web page may give it an air of authenticity, but that is not always the case.
The fact is that the Internet is overflowing with misinformation, likes, inaccurate speculation and utter nonsense. And this hasn’t been helped with a surge of websites designed purely to start rumors and print lies. Did you hear it on a Facebook post? A Tweet on Twitter? Or perhaps on some website you’ve never heard of?

The circulation of fake news depends very much on the readers not verifying what they have heard before they pass it on, or assuming that the source was legitimate and thus verification was not required.
A large number of websites that present their material in a typical news format have surfaced online but will routinely print false stories. These stories may be satirical or entertainment-based, or they may pretend to be satirical. Of course these sites are not reputable sources, much in the same way a Facebook post or Tweet is not a reputable source either. The business of misinformation flourishes with ignorance and failure of rationale.

In the age of information, ignorance is a choice. What do you do when you see a person, friend or family members share a fake news? Confronting them will only push them further away from the truth. I have discovered that the only solution is to join them and share stories, quotes or news that are so fake it’s actually insulting. This can be a test too, if they agree, chances are you are dealing with an unmitigated idiot. Ignorant people will remain ignorant, made worse by today’s social media. Unlike the good old days, people today have too many choices. They only subscribe to Facebook news feed geared towards their political views, further reinforcing their narrow point of views with no alternative source. They will skip videos that they dislike on YouTube and listen to those that agree with their social agenda, shutting out all possible reasoning.
That is what we get for having too much freedom. Too little is as bad as too much, Left wing nuts will only listen to Left wing news, while Right wing nuts will only tune into whatever suits their interests. Both extremes are bad. A case in point is the 2016 US presidential election where so many fake news were created on either sides. Recently, the ministry of information and broadcasting issued and then withdrew guidelines on fake news. It was a well meant but ill-thought-out gambit. In the debate, the real issue got skirted. Fake news is manufactured in factories to revile, debase and smear some person, party or company. Just discussing the damage it does to democracy or the violence it sparks doesn't help. The Indian news industry should be putting its heads together to tackle it. And this is where the profession runs into a wall. Forget whether the government is trying to control the Media, what has the industry think-tank done to extricate the profession from this morass? There is no restraint, no self-control. And there are good journalists who have to compromise to pander to their owners who are mostly politicians and businessmen.
The word freedom loses its sanctity and becomes a specious excuse when it is misused. If Media literacy has become merely academic without any sensible application, the less said about people who believe that news and views are the same. I say this with some responsibility as a professional journalist and a Mass Media professor. If the news industry cannot get together to ensure that audiences stay with credible, fact-checked news, then it cannot blame anyone but itself for losing the same audience to fake news.

Albert Einstein said that his biggest fear was people will attribute fake quotes to him and millions of morons on the internet will believe it. I am sure Dr APJ Abdul Kalam realized this after he died. But wait. Did Einstein really say that?