---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks & Best Regards,
CA. Vinod Dasani
V.H.Dasani & Co.,
Chartered Accountants
Website: www.charteredaccountant.co.in
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel (O): +91-22-28794708
Cell: +91-9322238407
Skype: vinod.dasani
Public Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/vinoddasani
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An article by Aashutosh Rathod.
Deputy Registrar - University of Mumbai.
How not to deliver a speech after a terror attack
On the evening of November 27, 2008, when India had been numbed by 24x7
live coverage of the terrorist attack on Mumbai, the Prime Minister of India
delivered a speech on television. This 'address to the nation' lasted seven
minutes and was delivered entirely in the English language. The television
frame had the Prime Minister in mid close up, reading from a prepared text. He
seldom met the eyes of the viewer; his voice, without any modulation, was
devoid of feeling throughout the seven minutes.
The Prime Minister began by describing the event right in the first
sentence as a 'dastardly terror attack'. Later in the same paragraph it was
called 'acts of senseless violence'. What was the goal of this speech - to
reassure, console, inform, educate or what? By defining the acts the way they
were in this opening statement of the speech which of these goals did the Prime
Minister meet?
The second paragraph described the event as 'well-planned and
well-orchestrated attacks'.
This paragraph categorically stated that the events 'were intended to
create a sense of panic by choosing high profile targets and indiscriminately
killing foreigners'. In terms of images this second paragraph clearly
contradicted the first. This second paragraph clearly assigned purpose to the
perpetrators, underlined their intention and their method to achieve their
purpose. While the first paragraph dismissed the attackers as mindless cowards
the second assigned them intelligence and managerial skills.
The third paragraph began by 'saluting the courage and patriotism' of
police officers and then called the perpetrators 'terrorists'. This was
followed by an assurance. The assurance was that 'we' would 'attend' in an
urgent and serious manner to 'police reform' so that 'law and order
authorities' could work 'unitedly, effectively and in a determined manner' to
tackle such threats to national integrity. Why is the collective 'we' being
used if the Prime Minister is addressing the nation? Surely it is presumed that
his cabinet and all Members of the Indian Parliament are with him? Or aren't
they? The English 'We' is not the equivalent of the Hindi 'Hum' especially when
the address is on television in a tight mid close up frame where nothing but
the person speaking is visible. To be able to pull through an address like
'We', presuming of course that it had the same purpose as in the Hindi language
- that of demonstrating the collective power from where the authority for
addressing the masses in this manner comes - would require the ability to hit
the extremely personal emotional chord that a reassuring parent, king or in
short a 'leader' would have for followers. However, given the Prime Minister's
demeanor, that of an academic and an intellectual, the 'we' went unnoticed and
unheard. An 'I' would have served the purpose better perhaps. The purposeless
'we' was further stripped of any ability to reassure or comfort when the Prime
Minister used the words 'attend to'. Throughout the speech there is an
extremely archaic use of the English language that today's middle aged and
young Indian citizens would have read only in the English language literature
of the 19th or early 20th century. Whoever has heard of 'countenance a
situation' in this day and age? Is the Prime Minister addressing Indians on
August 15, 1947, standing next to Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru or numbed and wearied
Indians watching their commercial capital being blasted and shot at by
terrorists in November 2008?
Out of nowhere, after this, the Prime Minister spoke of police reform.
The only foregrounding provided for this was the salutation to the courage and
patriotism of police officers who died in the attack. Delivered without any
voice modulation the entire speech was a string of statements without any
feeling. What connection was the Prime Minister trying to point at between the
salutation and the assurance for police reform? Were the police officers killed
because of lack of reform? That is very serious. Or isn't it?
The fourth paragraph begins with the senseless and purposeless 'we'. This
entire paragraph reiterates in different words images of the terrorists created
in the first two paragraphs. Here, for the first time in the speech, is said
that 'it is evident' that the perpetrators of the attack were 'based outside
the country'. This could have provided for a foregrounding of issues, ideas and
challenges in dealing with the situation although as before it was not
delivered with the necessary voice modulation. The next paragraph spoke of
'strongest possible measures' to ensure that such 'terrorist acts' were not
repeated. This strengthened the foregrounding for a strong message of
condemnation of the terrorist attack on India and its people. However, the
Prime Minister appeared to lose his nerve here. Just as the tempo was picking
up the vague 'we', with only the Prime Minister's face to it, resurfaced to
speak of determination to take 'whatever measures are necessary' to ensure
safety and security of citizens. The foregrounding simply evaporated.
The sixth paragraph said that 'instruments' like the 'National Security
Act' would be employed to deal with such situations and that existing laws
would be tightened to ensure there were no 'loop-holes' available to terrorists
to escape the clutches of the law. It ended by noting that it was 'essential'
to set up a federal investigation agency to go into 'terrorist' crimes and
ensure that the guilty were 'brought to book'. This entire paragraph was
self-condemnation. To begin with how many Indians would understand any of this?
Where Indians do not know their fundamental rights, duties and obligations
enshrined in the Indian Constitution, what is the chance that the same Indians,
listening to the Prime Minister's staid, emotion-less voice after being drowned
in images of mayhem and bloodshed for over 24 hours would be able to comprehend
the use of words like 'instruments' referring to the little-known National
Security Act? Short of saying 'we Indians are responsible for this situation'
these statements by the Prime Minister negated all the foregrounding of the
previous paragraph making both meaningless.
The seventh paragraph, the longest in the speech, began with the useless
'we' once more. Once again it provided a foregrounding as the Prime Minister
spoke of taking up 'strongly' with neighbours that the use of their territory
for launching attacks on India would not be tolerated and that there would be a
'cost' if 'suitable measures' were not taken by them. 'Costs'? What costs? This
is jargon. Who is the Prime Minister speaking to? Citizens of India or the CII,
FICCI, IMC crowd? The foregrounding in the opening sentence is again
deconstructed while discussing the measures to deal with the situation as the
Prime Minister speaks of taking a 'number of measures' to 'strengthen the hands
of' the police and intelligence organisations. The measures would include a)
curbing the flow of funds to 'suspect organisations', b) restricting entry of
'suspects' into the country, c) going after individuals and organisations to
'make sure' that every perpetrator, organiser and supporter of terror,
'whatever his affiliation or religion may be' pays a 'heavy price' for these
'cowardly and horrific acts'. If these are the solutions to the problem why
blame the neighbours? What was the need to point at 'affiliation or religion'
of the perpetrators? This was clearly political, referring to the emerging
'Hindu-terrorists'. Was this the right time for scoring brownie points?
The two concluding paragraphs appealed to the people to 'maintain peace
and harmony' so that the enemies of the country did not succeed in their
'nefarious designs'. The Prime Minister said that the authorities were on alert
and would deal 'sternly' with any attempts to disturb public order. Sternly?
How else did the Prime Minister propose to deal with terrorists who had taken
over key landmarks defining the commercial capital of India? The impact of the
'sternly', after what had already been said and the manner of the delivery, was
lost regardless of what the thesaurus says about its various connotations.
The Prime Minister closed his address expressing confidence that the
people of India would 'rise unitedly' to face this 'grave challenge' to the
nation's security and integrity.
The speech of the Prime Minister on television, coupled with the demeanor
of the Union Minister of Home, Mr Shivraj Patil, the casual manner in which the
Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Mr Vilasrao Deshmukh took a film producer while
officially visiting the Taj immediately after the encounter with terrorists was
over and his justification of the same on television and finally the comparison
with other terrorist attacks made by the Minister of Home for the State of
Maharashtra while justifying why he had not offered his resignation on moral
grounds before television demonstrates clearly that India's political
leadership is clueless about the power of the electronic media to create and
transmit images and messages. The Prime Minister's speech was at best a ritual
performed by a man not cut out for the requirements of the performance. The
response of all the politicians during the entire anti-terrorist operation
since November 26 underlined a lack of understanding of media. On the other
hand, the terrorists clearly knew what they were doing and used the media to
their benefit in full measure.
Visiting hospitals during tragedies is a favourite with Indian
politicians and was a case in point. The politicians appeared not to realise
that this was no 'natural calamity' but one for which they were responsible for
terrorism cannot happen without the collapse of the State in more than one
ways. The media coverage of the politicians' response to the three day anti
terrorist operation underlined clearly that once again, as with the British
colonial rulers, the interests of the rulers of India are not in line with the
interests of the ruled in India. The speech of the Prime Minister of India,
televised for seven minutes in the English language to an audience of
beleaguered and beaten Indians will perhaps go down in India's media history as
the best example of how a speech should 'not' be delivered during a national
catastrophe.
Regards,
Aashutosh Rathod.
Cell - 9860019555.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Skorydov MyTaxAssistant Member Group" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/SkorydovMyTaxAssistant?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
