“The more I see the representatives of the people, the more I love my dogs” , said Alphonse De Lamartine. These words reflect public sentiments after26/11 Mumbai attacks, especially after the remarks by Kerala Chief Minister V. S Achutananthan.
Mr. K. Rajeev, relative of the NSG Commando Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan who was killed in the encounter, pleaded with the media to end the controversy over the remarks of the Chief Minister. On behalf of Mr. Unnikrishnan, father of Major Sandeep, he apologized for his unruly behavior at the Chief Minister and his colleagues. With that, ‘the dog’ issue was put to rest.
As the fog created by the media lift, we can clearly see the facts—that a man lost his son and left a vacuum that no words, ex-gratia or musical tribute can suffice. And, greatest of all tragedies, that we as a nation has not learnt from our mistakes. It is banal to talk of media hype and media fuelled controversies. Common man seems to know as much about the media construction of reality as communication theorist does. And it has become habitual for the public as well as politicians to place the onus on the media for their own incompetence and lack of sensibility.
This is not to deny the role of media in the present controversy. They are only the catalyst of the controversy not the fuel of it. At the worst, media can be considered as pesky intruders.
The Chief Minister was replying to a question by a reporter as to what he had to say about being not allowed in Mr. Unnikrishnan’s house. One can easily make out from his words that he felt insulted at the house of Mr. Unnikrishnan . Speaking to the media in Malayalam Mr. Achutanandan said “Karnataka Chief Minister reached his house earlier than us. Was it agreed upon by the two CMs to go together?” And then he uttered those calamitous words “Had it not been for Sandeep, a dog would not have visited the house.” Media immediately capitalized on this as it promised higher TRP ratings. The sentence was promptly highlighted in the subtitle of the video and aired again and again by news channels.
To use a word like “dog” is not becoming of a Chief Minister. Further, there were efforts to clarify the CM’s statement as a colloquial expression. Anyone who knows the language will find these remarks as uncouth. Mr. Achutanandan was simply playing into the hands of the opposition and the hawkish media.
E.K Nayanar was known for his quirky comments and retorts which at times created controversies. When the idol from a temple in Kerala (Ettumannur) was stolen, he was accused by the opposition that the heist occurred because his government failed to ensure police security at the temple premises. Nayanar retorted, “ Does God also need police protection?” It will be remembered not only for the controversy it created, but also for the uncomfortable truth it drove home into the minds of the masses.
Mr. Achutanandan’s words were not just insensible but unhealthy for a democracy. His words could be misinterpreted as comparing the armed forces of a country to a dog.( And this misinterpretation was almost achieved.) Cumulative insensitive comments of this sort could actually weaken the morale of the armed forces. But let us hope that the harm will undone, thanks to short public memory.
