by Javed Jamil
backward, belligerent and uncivilised, making every possible effort to malign religion (especially a particular religion that is considered the biggest threat to their dominance), beating anti-west nations with the stick of “human rights”, blindly supporting individualism, regarding all social aberrations as natural, impressing upon the East that whatever vices the West is blamed for are also existing in their societies, and advising them that if they want to travel on the road to progress they have no option but to seek scientific, technical and economic assistance from Western Powers. BBC has always spouted venom on communism, Islam and Indian culture. It has constantly striven to demolish all religions in general and Islam in particular. The sense and concept of chastity with which Islam and other religious people have always been extremely concerned has been ridiculed rather than appreciated. Instead, it has carried reports on homosexuality and other similar perversions in some East Asian countries in order to convince the listeners that debauchery is not limited to the West.
The impact of economic fundamentalism on the press has spawned what is aptly termed 'gutter journalism'. The market of newspapers and magazines expands in the wake of sensational stories. Scandals are reported with great fanfare. in fact non-issues are many a time converted with the magic of ink into or sound into mind-blowing scandals. Sex scandals have become routine in the West. Till recently such news was confined to a few tabloids and the leading dailies did not attach any significance to these stories. But now even the biggest dailies garnish their front pages with reports, often with 'exciting' photographs, on the private lives of public figures. The affairs of the members of the Royal family are the topics of discussion in bars, restaurants and clubs of England. The British tabloids excel in such reporting and always find a Crown Prince, his estranged wife, a duke or duchess, a Diana, Pamela or Jemima to embellish their pages. Indian newspapers too have now started giving elaborate coverage to the happenings involving personal lives of the rich and famous. The photographs of beauty pageants and models regularly appear in the national dailies. Marriages and divorces of the celebrities are piled on the agony.
The impacts of sensationalism in journalism on business are manifold. It multiplies the sales of newspapers and magazines, diverts the attention of the masses from their real problems that are mostly the outcome of glaring economic imbalances accentuated by economic fundamentalism, fans materialistic desires which are the key to consumerism and changes social and cultural ethos in society. Sometimes it goes to the extent of blackmailing the public figures. The increased sales naturally bring in more advertisements.
To justify and perpetuate its style of functioning, the media has discovered the “freedom of expression”, which has lately assumed notorious proportions. To traduce anybody, to malign religions and religious figures, to describe and exaggerate the most private areas of the life of any celebrity, to portray or publish anyone in the nude, to film the lewdest forms of sexual relations and to engage in disinformation for the furtherance of the desired objectives--all these have become great symbols of freedom of expression for them. Liberty has turned into libertinage and license to express has resulted in licentiousness. Any attempt to censor or curb such vagrancy attracts virulent condemnation by the media all over the world. Those who advocate some control on expression are booed down as the enemies of freedom, civilisation and development. To give further credence to its licentiousness, the media has used the “right to know” as an instrument to defend itself. And when, sometimes, it faces unbearably intensive shelling for its waywardness, it takes refuge in the argument that instead of making any laws to patrol the media the media must itself resolve to exercise self-restraint. This is another matter that, as soon as the controversy gets subdued the self-restraint too is cremated with full media honours. Thus “freedom of expression” is nothing but a tool in the hands of the economic fundamentalists, who misuse it with great effect for their commercial adventures.
No doubt one may smile and smile and yet be a villain.
6.
Society given New Attire
With the successes in “reforming” law, “democratising” politics and administration, and marginalising religion, economic fundamentalism overcame some of the major stumbling blocks. With the ongoing emancipation of media from the administrative control, and the clutches of social taboos, the road was open for the inception of animated endeavours to 'transform' the social values; this was to be done in a way that would pave the way for the commercialisation of the objects and desires, good as well as bad, having market potential.
The dominance of religious and idealistic conviction all over the world meant that the people in general had respect for their duties. Anyone devoted to duties in life was showered upon with plaudits; in contrast, one lacking in dutifulness earned infectious contempt. Consequently, it was not easy for a person to be licentious. Not only did the law haunt him, he was also challenged by society. The elite, particularly the members of the ruling class sometimes succumbed to their basic instincts; but the common people generally led a relatively chaste life. Sinners, even if their sins were unknown to others, would sooner or later crumble under the weight of their conscience and would revert to a cleaner demeanour. If the ruler of the area himself happened to be a man of upright character, society would become purer; if his own integrity was doubtful he would still take extraordinary precautions so that his image did not get sullied, at least in the eyes of his subjects. This almost always meant that the level of depravity, with all its ups and downs, remained on the lower side. The business was usually limited to selling and purchasing of food items and goods of essential use. The emerging class of merchants and producers in the 19th and 20th century considered these conditions incompatible with their fundamentalist economic ideas. They believed that unless the social values were drastically reshaped, the prospects of their rise would continue to be ominously bleak. The quadriplegia of the legal system, the marginalisation of religion, the growing capability of industrialists to manoeuvre politics, the increasing fallibility of administrative personnel and the commercialisation of the media had already put them in the driving seat. The stage was now set for them to bulldoze the long-cherished social values.
The biggest challenge to the advance of economic fundamentalism was the “undue” emphasis in society on duties and prohibitions. The equilibrium between the rights, duties and prohibitions helped in keeping the susceptibilities of human beings to the worldly desires under check. The target customer of the big business was not an honest, less-worldly, God-fearing idealist whose preferences for self were no more pronounced than for the others. The idealists in society outnumbered them and would not let them spread their tentacles wide and across. Their dominating presence meant that any attempts to suppress egalitarianism would be met with stiff resistance. The backbone of their resistance was therefore to be broken. They contemplated that the human desires are too strong to be resisted by the common man. But it was difficult to convince the idealists. It was therefore felt that the ideologists must be challenged with a weapon similar to theirs. This, they contrived, would ultimately disarm them and, as a result of the debate, which was bound to be heated, prolonged and worldwide, they would win greater number of admirers with every passing day. They were pretty confident of their ultimate triumph, which they believed would come sooner than later because they knew that their opponents lacked in resources. The hired philosophers had sufficient fuel and the required support to ransack the old ideology; and the media was always ready to provide bases to their arsenals. The great 'ideological war' began with “rights” being its central theme. The self-proclaimed champions of personal rights soon started gaining popularity among the masses because their declared aim was to fight for the rights of the people. The people failed to fathom their undeclared motive -- to open new vistas for commercial entrepreneurship. The individual rights encompassed one’s right to wear whatever one likes or not to wear anything at all, to eat or drink whatever
suits one’s taste, to have physical intimacy with anyone and in any style one chooses, to enjoy and entertain in whatever manner one deems fit, to see or show whatever one wants to, to express whatever appeals to one’s heart or mind, to earn from whatever resources one can find and to play whatever game one feels like playing. No act should be taboo for a man or woman, whatever the consequences of these acts on oneself or the environment. It was not permissible only when it directly impinged the rights of others. It should be his or her and nobody else’s concern if his or her actions prove good or bad.
Within a short span of time, the concept of individuals’ rights became megalomania for the intellectuals, writers, professionals and social activists. Their zeal rapidly zoomed because they had discovered in the newly found emphasis excellent prospects for their own fame and glory. Any one prescribing to the contrary had no takers in the media or the society of the elite; his voice waned rapidly to become inaudible for the masses. “Duty" almost ceased to exist, and