This article is a work of fiction,
though it may seem as if it is not.
As per established routine, an advisory drafted on Raisina Hill went out Tuesday via a famous IT Cell to various media outfits on how to shape the flavour of the news in the day. The thrust of the latest memo was to counter the childish criticism – from the Opposition and, alarmingly, a wider public of fence-sitters – about the new official emblem of India that was unveiled by Prime Minister Narendra Modi atop the new Parliament House building.
Note to all editors
1. Anchors need to emphasise that the new roaring lion represents the New India. The Naya Bharat. For far too long we have been content to live peacefully and placidly at home and abroad. The New Emblem is emblematic of New India. Never mind the tautology.
2. It would be helpful to get a few nationalist historians and archaeologists to explain how the old, peaceful lion is un-Indian and un-Hindu. Perhaps some committed ex- bureaucrats can be pressed into service to argue that the old emblem of benign-looking lions was selected by Jawaharlal Nehru precisely because it was a misrepresentation of the virat ancient Hindu civilisation. We have noticed that some former ambassadors are particularly good at making this kind of historical argument. Channels should also suggest that his Discovery of India was an insult to the glorious Hindu legacy. A good prime-time debate topic may be how the British actually encouraged Nehru to write this book by sending him to jail for such a long time.
3. To drive home the point that the Opposition is opposed to upholding India’s Hindu identity, we suggest channels use the hashtag #EmblemJihad
4. The outsized, bared fangs in the new emblem are symbolic of the New India – unafraid, unyielding, unbowed, unmoved by appeasement and votebank politics. The new emblem serves notice on one and all – at home and abroad – that whosoever dares tangle with Modi and his India would bite the dust. [Note: Debate guests who raise China’s occupation of fresh Indian territory in Ladakh should have their microphones muted]
5. Reporters and talking heads should be discouraged from raising questions about the so-called poor aesthetic presentation of the new emblem. In fact, it should be aggressively suggested that all talk of aesthetics is a Western and Abrahamic notion. The Indic tradition favours imagery that the Khan Market Gang is incapable of appreciating.
6. All concerned should keep at the back of their mind that the choice of design – indeed the very need for a new emblem — was inspired by Our Leader himself. Therefore, there is no need for criticism or scrutiny. Anyone having any issue with the new emblem is out of line. Are they part of the tukde-tukde gang? This question could easily be posed.
7. Television channels, in particular, should refrain from showing the Lok Sabha Speaker in the frame while the Prime Minister is doing pooja. PM should always be alone in the frame. There is no need for anyone else to intrude on his space.
8. Media should question Asaduddin Owaisi – who raised a constitutional objection to the PM officiating – about why he is not objecting to the high birthrate of Muslims.
9 .Congress spokespersons, in particular, should be ticked off for quibbling with the new lions. They should be told that their real problem is the fact that “Shri Modi is India’s most valuable National Symbol.”
10. Freedom of the media in New India is paramount. So anchors are expected to use their imagination and initiative to answer any other ‘criticism’ of the angry lions from any other quarter.