Why Indian traditional media loosing out credibility fast?

There is no doubt Indian traditional media (Newspapers and magazines) were/are established/funded by and for Britishers and (then) black Britishers i.e. Congress and its allies. RSS/BJP/VHP had and has no guts to start its media. It is also true that they are arrogant enough to believe that they have their own sampark system (which they are loosing out fast as leaders and pracharaks now meet common workers or swayamsewaks less than before) so they don't need any media. They adopted Prasidhdhi Parangmukhta Sidhdhant.

So from very beginning, first in British rule and then in Congress rule stretched to 65 years, media created RSS/BJP/VHP image as Brahminwadi, dalit virodhi, feudalistic, anti reservation, Gandhi killer, militant, karmakandwadi, anti progress and conservative. Even till now, RSS/BJP/VHP are not able to change this image.

But on the other hand, it is also true that Sangh/BJP/VHP's sampark padhdhati worked well until some years back as leaders and pracharaks maintained contact with ground workers. So impression about these organisations changed some how in common people. At the same time traditional media (in which 24 hours running channels were added and its editors and journalists coming from print media were mainly pro Congress) continued to be anti RSS/BJP/VHP. But after 2005, use of social media changed dimension. Now Facebook, Twitter, news websites and youtube were there. So   leaders like L K Advani, Narendra Modi recognized its importance as early as in 2008 and started blogging, their websites and twitter handles were updated as and when their rallies started. They started posting their images and news on internet. So common people now got connected with them directly. If channels and print media were not giving coverage to their rallies, they got live telecast through webcast.

Also for starting website or blog, one did not need to get central government's permission or licence which was needed for print media/tv media, so many neutral or  pro RSS/BJP/VHP websites got started. They started putting their views on it. It also changed perception in common Bharatiya's mind that RSS/BJP/VHP is anti technology and conservative. Instead youth got connected with RSS/BJP/VHP more than Congress. Second, due to social media, traditional media  (print media and tv channels) started getting exposed. Also print media and tv channels' editors and journalists like Rajdeep Sardesai, Barkha Dutt, Anjana Om Kashyap, Punya Prasoon Bajpai joined Facebook and Twitters. Tagging facilities on these both sites got them trapped in questions and word battles where they had no answers to defend their pro Congress and anti RSS/BJP/VHP stand. Even Rajdeep Sardesai like journos had to quit twitter (however he is now back). But they termed this questioning and getting exposed as 'intolerance'.

People now can search facts ranging from ancient history to modern age, from Nehru to Modi. So image of Nehru and other Congress leaders began to diminish. Truth started coming out. This was also one of the factors behind victory of Narendra Modi in Lok Sabha elections 2014 who faced worst ever intolerance from these traditional media. So it seems pro Congress journalists are loosing fast. They are facing wrath of common people for running pro Congress news or for suppressing facts that go against Congress and its allies or for trying to tarnish RSS/BJP/VHP image or for suppressing good moves by RSS/BJP/VHP. They are so much anti RSS/BJP/VHP that to oppose them they sometime take anti national and pro Pakistan stand (like we saw in Yakub Memon's execution). So it is time to retrospect for traditional media and pro Congress journalists.

Modi Vs. Advani : When creator has to fight against his creation

(Courtesy : India Today)

Here and there, everywhere hot discussion is going on Narendra Modi vs. L.K. Advani fight. It is also called fight between chela (student) and guru (teacher). This is not first instance.

We have heard Arjun fought with guru Drona. In broad sense you can call it fight or conflict between creator and his or her own creation. I had read about fight between Hanumanjee and Shiv. Now it is known fact that Hanumanjee is considered as ansh awatar of Shivajee.

It was Shivajee who gave boon to Ravan but Ravan became so big and nuisance that Shivajee had to born as Hanumanjee to kill his own shishya or devotee Ravan. Althoough he didn't kill directly Rawan but played greater role in killing Ravan.

One more example is of Bhasmasur. Lord Shiva gave boon of almost immorality and then when he became destroyer god had to come to kill Bhasmasura. In 'Robot' film (Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Bachchan), creator of robot had to fight against his own creation.

Here there is no meaning or indication to say that Modi has become nuisance so Advani had to come in field to fight again his own shishya or creation. But when guru(creator) and shishya (creation) have same interests then chances of conflict between them are brighter.

In bollywood there are also such cases. Prakash Mehra created Amitabh Bachchan but later on they had not good relation. Subhash Ghai gave a rare chance to Mahima Chaudhary through his film Pardes, but later on they fought each other in court.

If you take parents as creator and children as creation then you will find there is increase in fight between parents and their children. Be it actress Nutan vs her mother Shobhna Samarth or actress Ameesha Patel vs her parent fight.

In many cases, fight is due to generation gap. Parents/guru/crator want to do things in his or her way while children/shishya/cration have different thinking. So fight happens. I call time after 90s as indiscipline time. Before that in most cases, children/shishya used to follow parents/guru whether they were right or wrong. After 90s, there is indiscipline in each and every field. Be it politics, sports or cinema.

It should also be noted that not in every case parents/elders are right. Prahlad or Vibhishan or Pandavs were right against their parent/elders. In cases like these, either due to ego or lust for power, parents/elders try to keep power in their hands eventhough they take wrong decisions.

In case of Advani vs Modi, it is evident that Advanijee wants to keep power in his hands although he failed to lead successfully in two general elections. While Modi has proven himself by successive victories and increasing popularity. Lets see who is proven right in history?