On Satyamev Jayate

After about 3 weeks, I have begun to understand possible ways responding to Aamir Khan’s new show Satyameva Jayate. Amidst and after a lot of entertainment shows that have taken artistic talents to new status, emerges a show called Satyameva Jayate – meaning Truth Triumphs. With a serious talk show format, the host Aamir Khan presents every week a well researched social problem. The methodology of the show has primarily been ethnographic, in which people are called and asked to narrate that part of their lives that concerns the show. The other method they use is case study based, depending on other already existing material on the topics raised.

When a show  like Satyamev Jayate introduces itself on its website as follows:

“What you will see is the truth. The truth that lives alongside us all… in the house down the street, in the next room, on your pillow, in tomorrow’s breakfast.
The truth in all its facets – beautiful, inspiring, thought-provoking, stark.        
We believe that Satyamev Jayate is not afraid to look the truth in the eye, take its hand and embrace it. After all, it belongs to all of us. And when we recognize the truth, when we discover that it is part of us, part of the things we cherish, then what? Then we know it Is time to think – perhaps to act.”

They almost proclaim themselves as the torchbearers of truth.

By far, the program has had 3 episodes focusing on female foeticide, child sexual abuse and dowry. All the episodes were presented quite well – they were researched quite extensively and presented very plainly, but strategically. Critical reflections at the mood that the show has created by far in three weeks shall bring me a lot of criticism for this post. However, at the risk of inviting more serious and provocative dialogue, I shall continue to write.

My problem is that instead of talking about the issue that the host presents, people talk about the show – its success and failure. This success or failure is attributed to the channel, presenter and the show. This in turn is talked about as TRPs, popularity and brings in more money in the form of more work to the channel or the host. That is the case with almost every show that is aired. My proposition is that it would be rather fruitful if people discuss the issue and instil in them the value that the show talks about than Aamir Khan.

We could assume the same for "Kaun Banega Crorepati" – more than concentrating on the positive aspect of knowledge dissemination, people want to see and participate in it because of their affinity for Amitabh Bachchan. In such cases, I feel is the failure of the shows for the society. It is the image at work, and not the message. If not that, how would KBC not work as good, when Shahrukh Khan would host it? However, a show like KBC was meant for entertainment anyway.

But it's a different ballgame if Satyamev Jayate falls into the same trap. You can draw a lot of audience for the show through a celebrity, but there is a risk of overshadowing the concern that you are trying to raise. Try changing the host for just two episodes and I wonder if it would perform as good as now. People are more interested in seeing Aamir Khan on the small screen, not as much as the issue that is discussed. If that was so, people would regularly tune in to the various talk shows that appear on Lok Sabha channels and Rajya Sabha proceedings that on a daily basis screen proceedings of the Parliament or air people who actually have the power to change policies. There are so many unpopular channels that bring extremely well structured and much intense and beautiful topics which  are only seen by a handful of people. There are extremely well designed shows on Zee Marathi or other regional channels that talk of a selected issue more closely, but non flamboyantly. How many of us know about them? Rather, how many of us would be interested in watching non-glamorous low budget productions like those? And the fact remains that these are all free, non paid channels, airing much relevant and localized content. 

The truth is that we like polished products. But I want to assert that this show is not about how perfect Aamir Khan is or how he is right every time! To evade such notions,  I want to mention that the issues that the channel has chosen by far already have a decision – there is nothing for you to decide...(you have no choice to make really)! You are made a mere spectator to clap at the end of every show. The more pressing issue lies somewhere else.

To give an example in relation to the marriages and dowry episode, my cousin who recently got married, fought a lot with his parents for a court marriage instead of a flamboyant one. He almost stopped talking, resisted eating food for 3 days, persisting on his idea of a no-frills wedding. It was his parents who wanted to have a ‘big’ thing, to show off to the society. It didn’t matter whether they could or could not afford the arrangement. The societal code was much more pressing. Finally he succumbed to their decision. The moral choice he had to make was between a plain wedding and keeping his parents happy...

The show has to bring up such moralistic issues which are anomalous, ambiguous; to be really able to change the society. We as middle class citizens agree with the values expressed as positive on the show, but we are not able to execute it in our day to day lives due to various other pressures that exist (like the example above). That I believe, has to be the area of concern.

However, what I like about Satyamev Jayate is that the production house has managed to screen it on Doordarshan as well as Star Channel  together and at the same time (I believe it's screened at the same time over 15 channels). This aspect of Aamir Khan is commendable. The second appreciable aspect of the show is that it acknowledges research and published items on the same topic by other channels and other people. The non existence of ego in such matters is a quality I appreciate.

On the other hand, the show has only brought up issues that are very popular – dowry, child sexual abuse and female foeticide - issues which have been in media for a long time. The show does open up really interesting grey areas without focusing on them. To cite an example, in the first show, it was able to identify a nexus of doctors and instrument producers that see a ‘business’ in female foeticide. In the latest show, they identified the irrational aspiration of the average Punjabi boy to move to a foreign country. Such issues, which are purely a capitalistic byproduct need to be addressed more sharply. I believe that if the reason behind the issue at hand is attacked than the issue itself, results would be much more tangible (like the ayurveda system of medication instead of allopathy which works bottom up, rather than top down). Mr. Khan shall keep on working towards making laws - but laws often become static and redundant.

What shall happen otherwise is that we shall develop absolutely binary outlook to all such social issues that are presented. There is an inherent bias already in all issues present at hand. What shall help address such issues is a historical perspective, which the show got in the first episode – the history of the family planning policies. That to me is more interesting, because it brings the critical undesired patterns that policies can manifest. To us, what should be more important is that we foresee such manifestations of policies or laws that we construct. The show generates an extremely strong ‘good’ &‘bad’ or ‘positive’ &‘negative’ or ‘this is to be done’ &‘this is not to be done’ with every episode, creating strong moral stances, even without explicitly expressing them on the show. With evolving societies, this can be problematic, just like the female foeticide. We would go ahead and make laws based on assumed morals that the show silently constructs for us. But we have to be more aware of how, in future, we anticipate the society to evolve, such that our laws remain sustainable and don’t creep up as negatives in future (like the family planning drive).

Truth, as the show dictates otherwise, is not singular. There are many truths, and their channels are to be understood. Truth is cultural. Culture is multifarious. There appears a strong undercurrent of desire and capitalistic nature of humans in evolving social problems. We need to understand the value of money more seriously; otherwise it would become a serious trouble eventually. I guess, soon, in schools we shall have a subject called ‘Domestic Economics’ where students shall be, rather should be, explained the importance and manifestation of the quantum of money that they have and use. I guess that will not only be beneficial, but shall become necessary to make students empathetic towards those who may not have luxuries to afford otherwise.

Lastly, it would be so much more beneficial if people talk about the issues instead of posting ‘likes’ on facebook. We remain passive admirers of such shows. All such shows are reduced today to facebook likes and google likes and number of hits or TRPs. In such sense, I appreciate more, the dance and music talent shows which are atleast able to circulate some money into the talented, by virtue of providing them the much needed opportunity by means of exposure...(such is one of the positive developments of globalization and, my subject of image culture).

Nevertheless, I look up to the show. Only if we see positive developments in our society in future through this show, shall I truly respect it. After all, a lot of people have already spoken about it previously. Why should the entire credit then go to Mr. Aamir Khan?

aspects and language of this post has been revised on 23rd May 2012