It created the new Pavlovian, policy patriots who beat out "yes" to anything the regime inaugurates. But is targeting an act of hygiene, of reform or does it smell more of vigilantism and a witch-hunt?X felt one can sense this in the performative acts of a policy. How does policy handle differences? How does one map a differential terrain of suffering? Does Mr Modi’s policy have a narrative for that?How does Mr Modi and his experts look at ordinary people? He talks of kadak chai but do ordinary people figure in his mind? Where in his calculus do we evaluate or mourn the roll call of the unnecessarily dead people who died because the families did not have ready cash. Demonetisation desperately needs such a remedy. It is the regime, right or wrong for the nth time.As spectators, what we then confront is the noise of policy not against critiques but the silences of the first week. One needs capital with a small "c" for subsistence economies. One discovers money is critical in small amounts.Sometimes news as a backyard creates a world of reflections, meditations on news, which are more profound than the event itself. I will call him X." One begins wondering whether the wrong groups are suffering. The initial drama of demonetisation then loses out to doubt and confusion. Many people hoard cash with none out of the villainy that policy https://www.hwugu.com/ attributes to hoarders. One realises that the timetables of the government are meaningless. Suddenly lines fall apart in consternation as those waiting patiently discover that ATMs do not have sufficient money. Language for him was both sign and symptom. The illiteracy of policy, the barrack yard of assumptions that accompanied its advance is lost. They feel exposed and even criminal before the husband as patriarch. Is Narendra Modi admiring himself or is he looking critically at policy? Does he have a Manichean sense of the world? If so, X asked is policy based on trust? Does Mr Modi see it as a part of the social contract? Or is Mr Modi like Sanjay Gandhi so utterly determined to fight poverty that he eliminates the poor? Ironically, policy in empowering the state might disempower people. It is this part that the media has been indifferent to.
If policy does not produce such an ethnography, democracy gets weakened.What do ordinary people feel about demonetisation? One senses little of this in the initial drumbeat of policy. How do they manage, cope with such artificial shortages? The demonology of black money has no place for ordinary people and ordinary lives. Mr Modi has to realise that policy is not a magic wand but a muddy process that he has muddied further with bad homework. All these are poor who turn up again. The slick policy statements confront the sheer anarchy of streets. Mr Modi does not seem capable of listening to it. While they write certificates of conduct for the PM, the ATMs become the nerve centres of the city. One needs a new kind of storyteller for such an epic. For X, an ethical editorship of news was a way of keeping the story open. This essay is a tribute to the professionalism of such a man. The language becomes didactic and politics becomes demagogic. Ready cash is the language of emergency, not of the black market.Suddenly one realises money means different things to different people.As the journalist hears different narratives, the uniformity of policy which one tacitly assumed so far is challenged. It revealed both the arrogance of power and its ironies. If the PM announces it as a threat, plays demagogue and the citizens echo him like a well-meaning chorus, then it does not augur well for democracy. The problem of pollution moves to the background as people wait for hours in line. Black money makes little sense to the daily wage-worker. Black money and "black" people become targets.
But there is little nuance and understanding in this group. Sociology begins giving a different picture of the economy. It takes the Supreme Court to point out this simple fact, that people cannot keep waiting. Housewives, migrant labourers, daily wage and dhaba workers need small amounts of money, which dry up in the demonetisation sun. It is democracy that is sounding vulnerable. People are too busy salvaging money, handling day-to-day survival to resist, oppose or even write little editorials on policy. One also confronts the everyday suffering of daily wager and students. The storyteller begins asking whether the government has even done its homework. Both are narratives, which had to be questioned as narratives. One of the most interesting of editors is a recent friend who hinted that editing is often like the mythical cleaning of stables, leaving the editor brain dead. By that time one hears that the government has thawed, offering concessions to families who are planning marriages. The tenor of policy is overemphasised when policy trumpets out its targets. Doubts accumulate about the great preparation and sink into the general tiredness of the day. Different people read it differently.Time becomes another significant variable.X warned against the narcissism of power.My friend was deeply concerned with language. It is now the government that seems to be creating law and order situations. Policy inaugurates its speech with a megaphone instead of creating a quieter accompaniment of hearing aids. The inversion is ironic but the media does not mention it. Ordinary citizens need small stashes to survive the everyday crises of economic life.
Humour gives way to the cynical as people realise that a lot of black money is already legitimate as gold and real estate, or reworked as savings.When the demonetisation project started, X quietly established a parallel between interrogating news and questioning policy.Policy on the ground is demanding a different set of narratives. Marriage without small change can be a heavy-handed affair. But there are a few stories about the difficulties of ordinary people. An editor not only evaluates script, he interrogates news. Many housewives who store money in little closets find themselves at a loss. Part of this takes place through the rituals of gardening, weeding, trimming that are the tasks of an editor. The professionalism, integrity and competence required is quite demanding. Meanwhile, the experts we hear, the editorials we read are of predictable sages who sound holier than the PM himself. Interrogating news is often like interrogating power. Is there a point of ending, or do people play the waiting game of lines endlessly? A bank official watching the lines was heard saying: "I do not see rich people waiting. The power of storytelling becomes crucial. Policy, he hinted, becomes an act of navel-gazing.
If policy does not produce such an ethnography, democracy gets weakened.What do ordinary people feel about demonetisation? One senses little of this in the initial drumbeat of policy. How do they manage, cope with such artificial shortages? The demonology of black money has no place for ordinary people and ordinary lives. Mr Modi has to realise that policy is not a magic wand but a muddy process that he has muddied further with bad homework. All these are poor who turn up again. The slick policy statements confront the sheer anarchy of streets. Mr Modi does not seem capable of listening to it. While they write certificates of conduct for the PM, the ATMs become the nerve centres of the city. One needs a new kind of storyteller for such an epic. For X, an ethical editorship of news was a way of keeping the story open. This essay is a tribute to the professionalism of such a man. The language becomes didactic and politics becomes demagogic. Ready cash is the language of emergency, not of the black market.Suddenly one realises money means different things to different people.As the journalist hears different narratives, the uniformity of policy which one tacitly assumed so far is challenged. It revealed both the arrogance of power and its ironies. If the PM announces it as a threat, plays demagogue and the citizens echo him like a well-meaning chorus, then it does not augur well for democracy. The problem of pollution moves to the background as people wait for hours in line. Black money makes little sense to the daily wage-worker. Black money and "black" people become targets.
But there is little nuance and understanding in this group. Sociology begins giving a different picture of the economy. It takes the Supreme Court to point out this simple fact, that people cannot keep waiting. Housewives, migrant labourers, daily wage and dhaba workers need small amounts of money, which dry up in the demonetisation sun. It is democracy that is sounding vulnerable. People are too busy salvaging money, handling day-to-day survival to resist, oppose or even write little editorials on policy. One also confronts the everyday suffering of daily wager and students. The storyteller begins asking whether the government has even done its homework. Both are narratives, which had to be questioned as narratives. One of the most interesting of editors is a recent friend who hinted that editing is often like the mythical cleaning of stables, leaving the editor brain dead. By that time one hears that the government has thawed, offering concessions to families who are planning marriages. The tenor of policy is overemphasised when policy trumpets out its targets. Doubts accumulate about the great preparation and sink into the general tiredness of the day. Different people read it differently.Time becomes another significant variable.X warned against the narcissism of power.My friend was deeply concerned with language. It is now the government that seems to be creating law and order situations. Policy inaugurates its speech with a megaphone instead of creating a quieter accompaniment of hearing aids. The inversion is ironic but the media does not mention it. Ordinary citizens need small stashes to survive the everyday crises of economic life.
Humour gives way to the cynical as people realise that a lot of black money is already legitimate as gold and real estate, or reworked as savings.When the demonetisation project started, X quietly established a parallel between interrogating news and questioning policy.Policy on the ground is demanding a different set of narratives. Marriage without small change can be a heavy-handed affair. But there are a few stories about the difficulties of ordinary people. An editor not only evaluates script, he interrogates news. Many housewives who store money in little closets find themselves at a loss. Part of this takes place through the rituals of gardening, weeding, trimming that are the tasks of an editor. The professionalism, integrity and competence required is quite demanding. Meanwhile, the experts we hear, the editorials we read are of predictable sages who sound holier than the PM himself. Interrogating news is often like interrogating power. Is there a point of ending, or do people play the waiting game of lines endlessly? A bank official watching the lines was heard saying: "I do not see rich people waiting. The power of storytelling becomes crucial. Policy, he hinted, becomes an act of navel-gazing.
コメント