.... the brain is not a vessel to be filled,
It is something to be IGNITED

July 4, 2005 

Shekhar Gupta,
Editor-in-Chief,
Indian Express,
New Delhi

WHEN PERSONAL PREFERENCES OVERRIDE ONE'S DUTY

Dear Shekhar, 

What do you do when a few people try to justify their personal preferences and work overtime to negate any good work done which (unfortunately) they find contrary to their own deeply embedded thought process and liking? What do you do when they unfairly try to influence countless unsuspecting people too; just because they are in a position to do so? What do you do when one such person is one of the most powerful media figure like Shekhar Gupta, the Editor-in-Chief of Indian Express? 

I am talking about the Cigarette and other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Amendment Rules, 2005 which under sub-rule 5 and 6 of Rule 4 now prohibits display of tobacco products and smoking situations and also make it mandatory to carry a warning line with every scene from the old movies having a smoking situation. I am also talking about your personal tinted reflections on the same through the news media you control and your projections on NDTV while interviewing Ajay Devgan. All of us are fully aware of the personal liking for the nicotine stick which Mr. Ajay Devgan and many senior people of Indian Express have. We understand that it is a part of the personal lifestyle of all these  people about which we can do nothing. They may think that they have a right to kill themselves the way they like; we have no arguments on that too. 

It becomes disturbing when you want the whole Nation to think like tobacco lovers, who quite like James Bond think that they also have the “License to kill.” When you through your newspaper project and highlight the move to control the tobacco menace as ludicrous and influence the people on the basis of your personal choice; when you put words in the mouth of a person whose charisma as an actor bedazzles millions and then quote your own words (from his mouth) and call the move to ban tobacco in movies silly; it is upsetting and quite unlike a fair and upright journalist. 

When a person who himself has liking for tobacco, questions a man who is also a chain smoker about the ban on tobacco, it’s like a thief asking another on what he thinks about people installing anti-theft alarms. We would have appreciated if you and your newspaper (as they should have) had researched (or carried the existing available researchs) about the role movies play in promoting tobacco or would have asked the same question from any psychoanalyst/psychiatrist, who are the ones competent to reflect on the issue. Your newspaper is projecting comments from people who themselves use tobacco, who are not academically competent to comment, who have no understanding of the whole issue and above all your newspaper is unfairly filtering opinion of all the people who are speaking in favour of the ban. Why? Shekhar must introspect?  

Have you read the anti-tobacco laws? Have you read any of the numerous studies on the role of media in influencing people, especially youngsters (Not only vis-à-vis tobacco)? Have you tried to get the opinion of even a single person involved in the anti-tobacco campaign or any psychoanalyst/psychiatrist? Are you aware of the cases where ban on advertisement alone resulted in over 7% decline in tobacco consumption in the first year itself? Can you name even 10 chemicals out of the 4000 toxic chemicals in tobacco smoke? Can you name even 4 ailments out of the near 400 resulting from tobacco? If the answer to any of the question is “No,” then what right do you have to load your personal opinion on other people? You may say “you are not projecting your personal opinions,” but that would be lying as you are fully aware that every morning millions take the printed words in the newspaper as the ‘Gospel of truth.’ An opinion or impression caused by the printed words creates an indelible mark on many vulnerable minds. A false on tinted propaganda is most damaging. 

When every morning people picked the newspaper and saw “Nicotine Nostalgia” in Indian Express it helped your agenda to confuse people and project that something awful is going to happen by banning tobacco in movies. It also showed your poor understanding of the issue as the scenes from the old movies are not to be deleted but that they are only to carry an anti-tobacco warning which can be done by superimposing a fixed slide. When you carried statements of actors bull-shitting the ban, it again helped your personal agenda as you selectively chose only those actors who themselves consumed tobacco or as producers collected money from tobacco companies for giving covert visibility. All those who were and could speak in favour were blacked out deliberately. When Shahrukh Khan and Salman Khan commented about the dangers of promoting tobacco in movies, there statements were trifled and mentioned just as a passing remark but when you interviewed Ajay you made it a point to instigated him and put your words in his mouth. When you carried his comments in the most prominently highlighted box and even combined all his quotes to form a single box it again reflected your personal thought process.

A media person has to be careful. More careful if the issue involved is known to result in the death of about 8-10 million people every year in India alone. The role of the media is to follow the truth without bias and to carry only what is of public importance and for common good (as a Supreme Court judgement reads). The people deserve to see things without any colour or tint, as they exist. Had it been some other person or newspaper we could have believed that there were economical considerations (as we know exist in some other newspapers) but those of us who have been reading Shekhar Gupta, know that these things can not influence him. But is this also (the way you are projecting things) not corruption; corruption of mind? 

What to say about the tobacco ban. Any person who use the syllogistic ways you have used can also prove that abolishing of Sati is a bad thing or caste system is justified or certain minority groups must be forcefully converted to the majority religion or even can justify murder under certain circumstances. Just think, in your position projecting any of the above is 100% possible.

 You have committed a mistake akin to a crime by carrying your personal agenda and influencing the minds of the people on such an important public issue. The Nation deserves an apology from you.

 This piece may not get printed in any newspaper or magazine but still we would be reaching over a million people through the wonderful media called the “Internet.” I am certainly no match for your verbosity but then I am not writing a poem. I believe you will agree that we too have a right to say what be believe to be correct and we also have the right to share our opinion with millions others, the way you do it, the only difference being that it is a little difficult for us to reach as many people with the same alacrity.

 Before you write another article/news story in your newspaper, try to put your house in order first. The Indian Express offices are public area and it is mandatory to display (under rule 3 of COTPR) a board at the entrance and one at conspicuous place(s) inside, containing the warning “No Smoking Area - Smoking here is an offence.” Your offices do not carry the boards and people find it suffocating to visit your office in any city with the employees blowing smoke on visitors face. Shouldn’t you first try to follow the law (which you are bound to) before reflecting on matters of which you have shown no inkling of understanding them first?  

Let there be no doubt, the present step of banning tobacco scenes in movies will eventually prove to be one of the most courageous and prudent decisions on the subject. 

We hope that you will reply and if you do so we promise to share your reply too with all the people who share this communication. We still appreciate you as a person and hope that you will understand the real intend of this communication. We expect that if you feel that you had gone a little too far in your enthusiasm to counter the ban, you will accept it. And if you think that we need to be corrected on some facts or opinion, we are most receptive.

[Home] [Previous Page]