The theory that dogs resemble their masters or vice-versa has been around for a long time. I have no idea why. It’s possible that people look around for pet dogs that look like them but that again is a theory. Maybe stray dogs somehow find their way to houses of people resembling them but that again is a theory. Whatever the reason, there seems to be some valid logic for such theories. Look at these pics and I think you’ll find it hard to deny that there is some secret or divine resemblance dogs have to their masters:
No matter how far you drive a dog away it has this uncanny but natural ability to find its way back to its master. Is the dog biased? Sure it is! It is biased beyond reason and will remain faithful no matter what. It does not tolerate any reason, question or logic against its master; which is why it’s called a man’s best friend. (Is it sexist to say just ‘man’ anymore? Should I say a person’s best friend?)
There has always been a question on many people’s minds: “Are our judges really unbiased”? The answer is a simple but emphatic “No”. Judges are as human as you and I and have their biases, opinions and preferences on almost all issues that come to their courts. In an unusual incident a former judge, Justice SM Soni, even wrote to the SC to keep Justice Aftab Alam away from Gujarat related cases due to his “communal mindset”. If you have heard the frequent statements by Justice Katju it won’t be hard to see that he has very strong views on almost every issue that surrounds us. The reason why judges are able to rise above their biases is because they are trained long years to interpret the letter and spirit of the law and go by facts and evidence. In higher courts it is rare to find a single judge deciding a case. It’s usually a bench of two or even more judges. Also, for their judgements they are accountable to the Law, the Constitution and their conscience and no other master. Beyond that, there is also a system of appeals that includes seeking a review of an SC judgement and can go right up to the President. What are our options with the media?
So when the eternal journalistic-bimbo announced her FTN show “Is Narendra Modi PM material?” you naturally wonder if she is even fit to discuss the topic given her hatred and bias. No, don’t take my word for it. Look at her tweet and look at the response she got from noted journalist Swapan Dasgupta (SD). Now I have to tell you, I have rarely seen SD being so blunt about anything. He is usually direct but with a lot of subtlety but in his tweet he directly charges the Social Genius not with bias but with “hatred” of Modi. Just a few weeks back Modi had sarcastically asked Rajdeep Sardesai, the ‘Numero Uno political analyst’ according to the Social Genius, if the people had assigned the task of finding a PM to the media. What SD asks is a very pertinent question. Many of our media celebs have made their fortunes not based on their bias but based on their “hatred” for Modi. In doing so, some have been as faithful as dogs are to their masters. Naturally, some even speak and bark like their masters do. They have come to resemble them in their discourses.
I strongly recommend that you read all the responses to that tweet of Swapan Dasgupta. Some are quite interesting and I reproduce a few:
One asks: @Swapan55 that just Paradoxically displays ur love for Modi!!! @sagarikaghose #FreedomofSpeech anyone?
This guy probably doesn’t realise the difference between being a biased journalist or commentator and being an anchor. He forgets that the anchor is supposed to be a moderator and not let her own opinions, bias and hatred dictate the course of the debate. SD’s sympathies for BJP or Modi are not a big secret. He does not pretend to be an “independent observer” like Sagarika or Rajdeep. More importantly, SD doesn’t allow his bias to condone lies, untruths and outright misdeeds by the BJP. The tweeter even overlooks the fact that SD is being invited for the very reason of his sympathies for Modi. SD further tweets that owing to her hatred of Modi, Sagarika should be a panellist and not the moderator. That would have been fairer.
Here’s another one from a regular moron on Twitter: @swapan55 Ouch. Clearly @sagarikaghose didnt invite you on the panel :p
Haha! This moron tends to speak before actual events. Little did he realise that when the show actually took place SD would indeed be on the panel. Perhaps it didn’t even occur to him that SD may have tweeted for the precise reason that he knew he was on that panel. Of course, ‘scoop and break’ specialist of CNN-IBN wasn’t to be left behind so he tweeted thus:
Bhupendra Chaube: @swapan55 ha ha, where is that anchor swapan?
That’s probably a dig Chaubeji wanted to take at someone. We know that lately Chaubeji is at the receiving end of some internal politics at his channel’s office and his bosses seem to be running a cheeky rivalry between him and Pallavi Ghosh in public through their tweets. All in good fun, one hopes. There are some other silly tweets like one asking if SD is being “paid” by Modi which don’t really warrant any comment.
As for the debate itself, there was Modi sympathiser Dasgupta, Modi critic Yogendra Yadav and Modi-haters Javed Anand and Sagarika Ghose. Yogendra Yadav has made a gentle shift from a “jholawalla” to politician recently. Javed Anand, husband of the washing machine of justice Teesta Setalvad, is as much a Modi-hater as Sagarika herself. So it’s 3 against 1 so you can imagine how the dice is loaded, loaded.
So let’s ask the same question we asked about judges. Can we expect media celebs to rise above their biases? Absolutely not! Especially not when it borders on hatred as has been over the years. Sagarika, Rajdeep, Barkha, Vir Sanghvi, Vinod Mehta, Vinod Sharma are not driven by bias. They follow a political agenda set by their masters. In the absence of independent moderators these media celebs automatically become the voices and barks of their political masters. By pitting 3 against 1 CNN-IBN has already skewed the time-share that would be available to each participant in the debate. This is the simple reason that the US presidential debates now have a clock running on the screen for viewers to see if both candidates are getting a fair timeshare.
Even in pointing out non-threatening PMs in the coalition era the SocialGenius reels off names to compare what she calls a “polarising” candidate in Modi: MMS, Narasimha Rao, IK Gujral, Deve Gowda. Oops.. the most assertive and yet a non-threatening PM in the recent past would have to be Atal Behari Vajpayee. Reminder: No matter how far you drive a dog away it has this uncanny but natural ability to find its way back to its master. It’s not only unconscious it is second-nature for dogs. As for threatening, who exactly does Modi really threaten? India? The idea of India? (As the social scientologist kept mentioning), the minorities, the media? Looks like Modi threatens the very Macaulay Putras and Putris who have so far lived a life of luxury and entitlement. He threatens the very masters of this class who hate anything that is likely to challenge the status quo.
After years of an insipid, lack-lustre, puppet PM like MMS it is only natural that many would like to see an assertive and decisive PM. Modi need not be the only candidate who fits that bill but there isn’t anyone else who's standing up yet. It wouldn’t be unfair to say that the Cong-UPA under MMS (or Sonia if you like) has figuratively burned down mission-India and many dreams and houses. As for the dogs, even if their masters literally burn down the mission and the house, I leave it to you to wonder who they will still follow. Seems their masters walk them well.