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!
No comments:
Post a Comment