In the middle of an argument over Aamir Khan's famous "intolerance" remarks, a childhood friend called me a "pseudo-secularist". 'Why don't you rebut the argument instead of calling me names," I said. He stopped, thought about it and began the argument all over again, this time with a counterpoint. For the record, we continue to hold different points of view.
The tendency to focus on the physical, material or emotional make-up of a person whose opinions you don't agree with, instead of the point he/she is making is one of the biggest issues with the quality of discourse happening on any topic in India. There are two others - massive polarisation led by digital media and the rising number of talkers.
These three factors feed off each other, warp the quality and texture of debate not just in coffee shops and dining rooms but in popular media too. And if the content we consume - through news, films, online discussions - is intellectual and cultural fodder, then should we worry? In all the shouting, screaming and name-calling are we missing out on films, books, discussions or articles that could have informed us better?
Consider each of the factors.
A billion people will have a billion opinions but can we express them civilly, without calling someone Hindu, Christian, Muslim, socialist, rich, white, or whatever? You could argue that a point of view comes from where a person is. But if people focus only on the colour or background of the person they are arguing with, where is the debate?
For example, when filmmaker Karan Johar jumped into the "intolerance" debate, several people posted pictures of what the ISIS does to dissenters, to show how "tolerant" India is as a country. But is that what we aspire to be - the most violent and intolerant regime in the world? Why not compare India with the best, most intellectually liberal, educated economies - and ask what it would take to reach there?
And therein lies the nub of a good debate: Is it ideologically and philosophically progressive or regressive? We are falling into the regressive debate trap - across the board. It is all very fine to make fun of Arnab Goswami's self-righteously combative style - but many Indians think that is how arguments are made. Goswami continues to be popular and his show tops the charts, year after year.
That brings me to point number two. Goswami and his Hindi brethren, who are even more factually flawed and opinionated, have created a world or are probably a product of one, that is increasingly polarised. This is truer on digital media. Its algorithm-driven nature takes people only to their interest area - so if you are a liberal you will view only liberal websites. Unless you choose to look for it, the chances of reading a leftist or rightist point of view are small. This makes for intellectual ghettos manned by an army of people dying to take offence at anything. This in turn explains the rising calls for banning books, films or paintings in India. Think about it: Would a film like Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro or Garam Hava have been released in the India of today?
On a recent column on Facebook's Free Basics, net neutrality fanatics got after me till I requested they read and understand what I had written before reacting. A couple of them had the grace to apologise.
That brings us to the third point. Globally, the ability to read, watch, hear or take in something is on the wane. The deep focus that is critical to reading about and understanding an issue and coming up with solutions is a thing of the past. Research shows that the most productive people switch off their phones, go off social media for weeks and focus. But mostly the world is full of talkers, hardly anyone is listening.
Many of these talkers insist on arguing as equals with someone who may have spent 10 to 20 years studying, say, spectrum or power pricing. To add to their ignorance are thousands of websites with no credentials, churning out warped versions of science, economics or history.
That brings us to the final question: Who is the audience then, in this world of chatterboxes? Largely, digital media runs on the same economic principles as offline: you gather audiences, you monetise them through advertising and subscription. However, if there are no audiences, only "content creators" who are bent on shouting, where does that leave the economics of the business? In corporate ghettos built by Google and Facebook, among the five large global corporations that dominate audiences and revenues online?
Twitter: @vanitakohlik
Disclaimer: These are personal views of the writer. They do not necessarily reflect the opinion of www.business-standard.com or the Business Standard newspaper
