Whats New(s)?

Today, the News Reader app in my phone had news about a nuclear scientist executed in Iran because he was suspected of being a spy, along with prospects of Baahubali 2 at the box office versus that of Kabali, followed closely by the unrest in Kashmir (Unrest?!) rubbing edges with a title, “Here’s why some girls friendzone guys” (!U#@&#^@@!!)

Yesterday and the day before that and the day before were no different.  News about Hollywood, and Bollywood and all the deadwoods besides political statements are interspersed with some news about collapsed bridges or buildings and rapes and gang wars and some leftover space for the unrest in Kashmir.  There is of course no mention of farmers now.  A farmer suicide has become commonplace. So what’s new(s)?

Believe me when I say that I tried to customise the app, but it refuses tweaking beyond a control point.  Perhaps if we could ascribe attitudes and emotions to software, then I could call the programme completely insensitive and numb and blind.  However I realise that we (I) are also all of that.  Or we simply make the choice to be that way because we just don’t have it in us to handle the overwhelming deluge otherwise. 

If I lived in a time when information say, even about the death of a relative, could only travel at the speed of foot, or horses or carts, then I would have much lesser choice about the news and kind of news I got.  I would have thus have a lot of time after the actual event in which my reaction can materialise and then some more time before it can reach any targets beyond the immediate neighbourhood.  As a matter of fact, I may be blissfully unaware of things beyond my experience for the most part.  My immediate surroundings would first hold my concern then. My expert comments and opinions then may truly be nearing expertise because my truth and my experience is in the vicinity and definitely similar if not the same.  And my response to news from a far-off place would fall under broader categories of approach and experience.  For instance, I do not have experience of the violence and the kind of struggle that Kashmir is experiencing now.  So if this ‘news’ had come to me at a non-digital, non-speed-travel time, I wonder how would it have come to me (in what form, what story etc) and how I would respond. I wonder whether I would react from such polarised locations as is happening today.  One important factor is that the whole information exchange process would be slower.  There is time and space for some sensitivity. 

But just contemplating a what-if scenario is neither here nor there.  Taking a look at reality: There is so much happening all across the country and beyond, and with the people around me, which I am privy to through all the stories, essays and news.  And I am adding to that about all and sundry.  Every day there is something new or old, to write about and share. 

I am having an internal dialogue around this consumption and churning out process of information and news,

I am as much a participator, perpetrator and initiator of all the news crunching.  But then, do I want to opt out of it? No.  I question myself whether it is a feeling of missing out, when I read or write and put myself through that examination once in a while. 

Who am I writing for?  Yes, I am writing for myself, but then is that enough?

How am I any different from my ‘insensitive’ news app in which all kinds of news jostle for space and attention. 

However, is that judgement true really? We each take our pens, our creative direction and implements towards that which moves us, if done consciously, and / or follow peer / conditioning / popular trends etc. 

But then, news, and creative writing and stories are also responses to triggers, right? That which is moving one to react / respond. What is the problem with that? Are all these triggers 'external' alone, outside of me.  However, it is true that writing as a reaction or response to stories and news maybe a habitual pattern, knee-jerk and lending itself as a trigger for further reactions and this goes on. 

This then means that I am in a healthier (authentic?) location when following my internal triggers rather than react to external ones. (I always have questions about this dichotomy of internal and external). 

However, this point in the conversation takes me back to my initial question, who am I writing for? If I am following my internal triggers, how is it of interest and / or use to another person? Does it help her in some way?  Do I want it to help her in some way and / or do I want to influence her with my opinion of the topic? Why are they reading this piece now?

My pet peeve with the information trappings of these times is that they seem to have bypassed the lessons in sensitivity.  There is something mind numbing about the colossal amount of information available to us without real learning / truth / reflection / wisdom. At the very least, a seeking for the truths of people and situations.    

However am I being and doing the same thing when I write?  One day it is about an environmental crisis, another day it’s a short story and the third day a personal one, as I follow my whimsical muse. 

This makes me put forward the question, why is it that each of us is reading so much, and why is it that we are all writing so much for others to read more?

Even while asking that question, I see that it’s a personal and subjective question, and I will do well replacing the “we” with “I”.  And yet, there is also a collective energy and movement that I perceive.

So I ask these questions, say that I am sitting on an enquiry with these questions, and scoot to the blinking and vibrating news app on my phone!