Digital Media and its Echo Chambers

The Japanese have a phrase to describe Indians - お喋りインド人 "Oshaberi Indo-jin", which translates politely into 'Chattering Indians'. A term reserved for insensitive folks who talk for the sake of talking, without consideration to others.

Nowhere is this more painful than at public lectures, seminars, workshops and conferences. At international events, it is often a nightmare for the organisers that unfolds at three levels: First, the embarassment about key speakers not arriving on time, leading to announcements that the event is delayed because so-and-so got held-up at an "important meeting"; Once the meeting starts, it is about speakers who ignore the clock and carry on blaberring, ignoring frantic signals to cease, and finally, the pain of enduring a Q&A session. Here again the organisers plead for short, pointed questions from the audience, and what they get instead is long speeches from folks who refuse to let go of the mikes.

Last Friday, I participated for the first time, in a seminar where the organisers tried a novel way of dealing with the Q&A problem. This was an event organised jointly by IIC, CPR and the Niti Aayog called Metamorphoses - part of series that calls itself "a modest effort to try and bridge the gap between digital technologies, which are transforming our lives, and our understanding of their multiple dimensions".

Despite the absence of one of the main speakers, the event started more or less on time. As expected, the event had its panel of heavyweights on stage: the Principal Scientific Advisor to the Prime Minister, along with representatives from Twitter, the Silicon Valley, and think tanks. The format for Q&A came with a digital twist. 

A slip of paper placed on each chair in the hall had a certain number to which you had to send an SMS, if you had a question for any of the panelists. A representative from IIC/CPR would then choose from the messages received, and convey selected questions, to the panelists on stage.

Much like the Twitter algorithm discussed in the seminar, this Q&A format created an echo chamber in which the panel received only sanitised, insipid questions that gave an illusion of public engagement. The organisers may have suceeded in sticking to timelines while nipping out presky mike-grabbers and their long-winded questions, and but it also robbed the event of its human touch. A podcast may have served their purpose just as well.

SMSs at the Q&A Session@IIC, New Delhi

After this event, I now have a greater appreciation for the "Explained" events organised by the Indian Express. It starts with a public advertisement in a newspaper (not a mere mailing list), attracts SMS confirmations from a fairly broad spectrum of the public (not just retired bureaucrats), and their Q&A sessions are orderly without being overbearing. 

It also helps to have an alert moderator on stage, who also directs a team that passes wireless mikes to the audience. Since the norms are enforced with an even hand, the post-event discussions turn out to be lively and spirited, giving you a much deeper understanding of the issues discussed. 

When it comes to organising real public engagements, perhaps it is time IIC, CPR and Niti Aayog learned a thing or two from folks at the Indian Express. We could all then step out of our echo chamber's and have a discussion that is really worthwhile.

-----------------------------------------------------------
LINKS:

* Centre for Policy Research and its Metamorphoses - https://metamorphoses.in/
* Explained by the Indian Express - https://indianexpress.com/section/explained/

Roaring and Bleating

Bharat Karnad launched his new book today: "Why India is not a Great Power (yet)".

I had been looking forward to this event ever since the CPR invitation hit my inbox. I had expected thisto be another of those dour events where folks landed up late, where a flunky praised the author and his book to the skies, the author read some excerpts, everbody clapped, chatted over some coffee and dispersed.

As expected, the event started 30 mts late, but everything else was refreshingly different. The author made some opening remarks, positioning himself as a military "hawk" and then went on to paint a dismal picture of India as a world-power-wannabe. An aspirant unable to muster the will, either to have a global vision, or to implement it. A lion in that bleeted like sheep, and acted like one.

Karnad's views on the subject are well known. Interestingly, while all the panelists agreed that it was a great piece of work, not one of the agreed with his conclusions. And the best part of it was that Karad had personally invited experts who had a diametrically  opposite world view.

Jairam Ramesh, a Congress-man and former minister in the UPA government, felt that Karnad had erred in equating military might with being a global power; Shiv Shankar Menon presented elegant and coherent agruments on why all the policy recommendations of the book were signs of a declining power, not a rising one; Adm. Raja Menon read out a note from which it was difficult to separate exerpts from his own views, and Maj.Gen Narasimhan thought that Karnad's conclusions were flawed because they were based on a limited interaction with those who knew better.

All through the wit, sarcasm and sage advise, the experts agreed on one point: There is not much  internal coherence within Government of India - each ministry and department has its own ideas on what constitutes "national interest", with many of them working at cross-purposes.

Like the 'Blind Men of Hindoostan', they all hold on to their own views and miss the elephant in the room.

Some interesting takeaways:

• Nehru, despite all proclamations on non-alignment gave the first go-ahead for the nuclear weapons program. This was part of a vision which withered away after 1964
• 23% of Indan Army budget goes towards maintaining armoured corpes. Two mountain divisions can be maintained for the cost of one armoured division;
• Despite all its war-games, the IAF was completely unprepared for Kargil. It had never envisaged a was on the Himalayan frontier. Even today, the focus remains on 'short, decisive' wars along the Western border, despite rising alarms about the Tibet border.
• Our military brass seeks approval from a Western audience, not its domestic stakeholders. It took an MIT case-study and GE's initiatives, for to realize the value of "frugal innovation";
• Everybody realises the need for a strong private sector reducing our dependence on imports but there is not sufficient motivation (read "trust"), to see this through.

----------------------------------------------------------
LINKS:

- OUP Book - http://www.oup.co.in/product/academic-general/politics/international-relations/207/why-india-is-not-great-power-yet/9780199459223