This past week, the world’s attention was focused on a historic building in South Asia. Though some of the subcontinent’s most important people were supposed to be in attendance, the spotlight was shining on just two of them. There were many questions on everyone’s mind. Would these two heavyweights, each with millions of people behind him, make peace with each other? Would they politely nod to acknowledge each other’s presence or would they shake hands and keep it formal? Would they hug away all their differences or would they simply fist-bump away their anger? The air was pregnant with excitement. But enough about the SRK-Salman summit at Arpita Khan’s wedding!
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation consists of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Apparently, in the last couple of decades of the previous century, the countries that make up South Asia felt like there weren’t enough international forums for India and Pakistan to ignore each other and pretend that the other doesn’t exist. Someone said, “Let’s form a geopolitical organisation that has none of the power of the United Nations Security Council but has all of its backstabbing, bureaucracy and gridlock”, and, voila, SAARC was born!
I, for one, am shocked that an organisation that brings together leaders of countries who hate each other’s guts and have decades of mistrust between them has never been able to achieve anything tangible. The organisation has all the sincerity of a 10-year-old being forced by his parents to apologise to another kid he just punched in the face and the awkwardness of a family dinner in which the parents just told their only child that mommy and daddy are getting a divorce and it’s not your fault honey.
It’s déjà vu all over again
The forum is actually supposed to discuss issues that affect all eight member nations. However, if you watched the breathless coverage in the Indian media, you’d think that the only focus of the forum is the constant will-they/won’t-they sexual tension between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan.
This happens every time they get the ol’ South Asian band together. As if on cue, the prepubescent fangirls masquerading as media professionals start shrieking loudly to encourage their two favourite members of the band to publicly acknowledge that they might be a little more than just friends. They read too much into every uncomfortable smile, every cumbersome handshake, and every clumsy hug. No matter what the circumstances, they never stop hoping and praying for their One True Pair to get their happily ever after.
The handshake heard around the world
It’s January 2002. India and Pakistan are at odds again. There is talk of war in the air. People are talking about using nuclear weapons like they’re playing a game on Playstation. Against this tense backdrop, a SAARC summit is being held in Kathmandu. There are lots of issues the member countries want to discuss, but the only thing on everyone’s mind is whether the prime minister of India and the president of Pakistan are going to talk to each other.
And then, it happens. The two leaders shake hands. And everything is perfect once again! Birds all over the world begin singing in unison. Flowers bloom to their fullest. Bears come out of hibernation. Wolves stop blowing down non-brick pig dwellings for a few minutes and all of them join other members of the animal kingdom to celebrate this landmark moment in the planet’s history. It starts to rain because even god can’t hold back his tears of happiness.
Or maybe no one gives a rat’s ass. I’m a little fuzzy on the details.
Back to the future
The people covering these summits must be graduates of the Madhur Bhandarkar School of Hard Knocks because they keep making us sit through the same thing over and over and over again. However, this sort of reverential coverage wherein each gesture the leaders make towards or around each other is overanalysed to death is not limited to just SAARC summits. It happens wherever the leaders of these two countries make a simultaneous appearance, whether it’s Sharm el-Sheikh, the United Nations or New Delhi. The only exception is when it comes to competing with each other for the affection of the American president. Then it becomes a race to see which country is the belle of the ball. zOMG! The American President spent a zajillionth of a second more while talking to our leader! He wants us to have his babies! In your face, haters!
And that’s how you build a media narrative, kids. By continuously repeating the same vacuous talking points again and again because you’re that cynical about your audience’s intelligence. They don’t do these things because of some grand conspiracy but because they think that this is exactly what people want to see. They’re saying inane things not because some shady douche sitting in an unlit backroom gave them their marching orders. They actually believe that the viewers are sitting on the edge of their seats, breathlessly waiting for each nugget of insight.
We interrupt this broadcast
My favourite part though is when at the end of a couple of days of non-stop coverage about something silly like a handshake or a hug, each one of the primetime anchors will ask one of their reporters or a guest in the studio whether the media as a collective is giving too much attention to something that is basically a non-event.
From the outset that sounds like a brief flash of self-awareness. That makes it appear that even the sultans of cliché are aware of how rote their “reportage” has become. That spending a million hours talking about insipid bullshit has brought them to a place where they’ve finally managed to say something that isn’t totally devoid of any intelligence. That they’re mad as hell and they won’t take it anymore. However, a split second later, they provide some hackneyed answer to their own question to let us know that they won’t ever be Howard Beale-ing all over our television screens.
If only the people who tell us what the news is could do something about the people who tell us what the news is.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation consists of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Apparently, in the last couple of decades of the previous century, the countries that make up South Asia felt like there weren’t enough international forums for India and Pakistan to ignore each other and pretend that the other doesn’t exist. Someone said, “Let’s form a geopolitical organisation that has none of the power of the United Nations Security Council but has all of its backstabbing, bureaucracy and gridlock”, and, voila, SAARC was born!
I, for one, am shocked that an organisation that brings together leaders of countries who hate each other’s guts and have decades of mistrust between them has never been able to achieve anything tangible. The organisation has all the sincerity of a 10-year-old being forced by his parents to apologise to another kid he just punched in the face and the awkwardness of a family dinner in which the parents just told their only child that mommy and daddy are getting a divorce and it’s not your fault honey.
It’s déjà vu all over again
The forum is actually supposed to discuss issues that affect all eight member nations. However, if you watched the breathless coverage in the Indian media, you’d think that the only focus of the forum is the constant will-they/won’t-they sexual tension between the prime ministers of India and Pakistan.
This happens every time they get the ol’ South Asian band together. As if on cue, the prepubescent fangirls masquerading as media professionals start shrieking loudly to encourage their two favourite members of the band to publicly acknowledge that they might be a little more than just friends. They read too much into every uncomfortable smile, every cumbersome handshake, and every clumsy hug. No matter what the circumstances, they never stop hoping and praying for their One True Pair to get their happily ever after.
The handshake heard around the world
It’s January 2002. India and Pakistan are at odds again. There is talk of war in the air. People are talking about using nuclear weapons like they’re playing a game on Playstation. Against this tense backdrop, a SAARC summit is being held in Kathmandu. There are lots of issues the member countries want to discuss, but the only thing on everyone’s mind is whether the prime minister of India and the president of Pakistan are going to talk to each other.
And then, it happens. The two leaders shake hands. And everything is perfect once again! Birds all over the world begin singing in unison. Flowers bloom to their fullest. Bears come out of hibernation. Wolves stop blowing down non-brick pig dwellings for a few minutes and all of them join other members of the animal kingdom to celebrate this landmark moment in the planet’s history. It starts to rain because even god can’t hold back his tears of happiness.
Or maybe no one gives a rat’s ass. I’m a little fuzzy on the details.
Back to the future
The people covering these summits must be graduates of the Madhur Bhandarkar School of Hard Knocks because they keep making us sit through the same thing over and over and over again. However, this sort of reverential coverage wherein each gesture the leaders make towards or around each other is overanalysed to death is not limited to just SAARC summits. It happens wherever the leaders of these two countries make a simultaneous appearance, whether it’s Sharm el-Sheikh, the United Nations or New Delhi. The only exception is when it comes to competing with each other for the affection of the American president. Then it becomes a race to see which country is the belle of the ball. zOMG! The American President spent a zajillionth of a second more while talking to our leader! He wants us to have his babies! In your face, haters!
And that’s how you build a media narrative, kids. By continuously repeating the same vacuous talking points again and again because you’re that cynical about your audience’s intelligence. They don’t do these things because of some grand conspiracy but because they think that this is exactly what people want to see. They’re saying inane things not because some shady douche sitting in an unlit backroom gave them their marching orders. They actually believe that the viewers are sitting on the edge of their seats, breathlessly waiting for each nugget of insight.
We interrupt this broadcast
My favourite part though is when at the end of a couple of days of non-stop coverage about something silly like a handshake or a hug, each one of the primetime anchors will ask one of their reporters or a guest in the studio whether the media as a collective is giving too much attention to something that is basically a non-event.
From the outset that sounds like a brief flash of self-awareness. That makes it appear that even the sultans of cliché are aware of how rote their “reportage” has become. That spending a million hours talking about insipid bullshit has brought them to a place where they’ve finally managed to say something that isn’t totally devoid of any intelligence. That they’re mad as hell and they won’t take it anymore. However, a split second later, they provide some hackneyed answer to their own question to let us know that they won’t ever be Howard Beale-ing all over our television screens.
If only the people who tell us what the news is could do something about the people who tell us what the news is.
