Rupert Murdoch’s Experiments with Truth
Satyam or Truth, as we know, is one of the attributes of the Supreme. In Vedic Sanskrit there are two equivalents for the English word ‘truth’. They are: satyam and rtam. The expressions in the upanishadic invocation rtam vadishyami, satyam vadishyami meaning ‘I will tell truth’, I will tell truth’ are quite well known. There is a slight difference between the two words rtam and satyam.
Shankara’s commentary on the two words shows that while satyam is an eternally valid statement uncontradicted or uncontradictable in past, present and future, rtam is a truth of lesser order or degree. It is something which is deduced in a particular context in the light of a scriptural injunction. In a way, it is a contextual truth or what is right under the circumstances (not expedient). Like in the story of the sage who was giving shelter to a fleeing victim who was being chased by a robber. On the robber’s query as to whether the fleeing person was hiding in his ashram, the sage seems to have replied: the eyes which see cannot tell and the tongue which tells cannot see. Of course, in those dharmic days the robber did not further interrogate the sage nor search his house but went away. Here what the sage was telling was rtam i.e. what was right in that situation as per dharma. So the word rtam seems to be closer to the English word ‘right’.
What Rupert Murdoch was doing was to somehow know and tell truth like the upanishadic student who said ‘I will tell truth’, but something went wrong.
What was his intention in finding truth and what sort of truth was he trying to find out? Well, he has been accused of prying into the private lives of people and blackmail and consequently aggrandize himself and build up an economic empire with, of course, a lot of clout. The mens rea, or the intention as they call it in law is important here. He was interested in knowing the salacious or sleazy details of celebrities, which would in no way ennoble the sensibilities of the readers, but on the other hand, would debase the sensibilities of the society. That was why there was so much of righteous anger. The British Police which was considered as the role model for police all over the world, had also to suffer a humbling moment.
The next question is familiar: who is the conscience keeper in the society?
When Joseph Addison started his paper ‘The Spectator’, it was a turning point in modern history, as it provided a witness and a critic of all the wrongs in the society. Human society always requires such a mechanism for its own self-criticism and reconstruction. The ancient Indian model was that of rshis, or sages who had the freedom to admonish kings when things went wrong and they were above any persecution by the kings. History is replete with many examples to illustrate this. When kings changed or when kingdoms were invaded these sages were untouched. The sages in turn kept up high standard of virtuousness and were the moral mentors of the society. These were the intellectual minority in Toynbee’s words who guided the majority in association with the kings. The sages represented the saatvic temperament and the kings represented the rajas temperament. Shankara, in his commentary on the Gita (4-1) in fact concludes: brahma-kshatre paripalite jagat paripalayitum alam i.e. the whole world could be protected if the integrity of the two agencies_ the intelligentsia and the ruler_ were protected. (That is why the Gita was taught to a warrior and not to a retired person finding it difficult to attain detachment). References to these two agencies are quite frequent in the vedic literature.
Poets in some societies were charged with the responsibility of keeping a watch on the rulers and had the freedom to comment on them. The Indian society also gave such role to poets. But this is not as effective as the institution of sages or religious leaders.
The judiciary is only reactive, not proactive. The judges can adjudicate an issue only when it comes on to the bench. They can only interpret the law made by the law maker, who is the politician. All the experiments like the ‘creative interpretation of law’ etc. have their limitations.
The field is now left to the civil society and the media, (which is in fact, a part of the civil society) to correct the society. They are the custodians and commentators on public morality and political integrity. The civil society,however, is finding it difficult to find unanimity on any issue, because the intellectuals are aligned to one ideology or other, and it is difficult to have a non-aligned intellectual.
The old adage –‘tell truth, tell the pleasant truth, do not tell the unpleasant truth’ (satyam bruyat priyam bruyat, na bruyat satyam apriyam) is for someone who wants to play safe. There is another prescription for those who are expected to be the watch dogs of society-‘tell truth, even unpleasant, when you have to correct a wrong in someone whom you love’.
It is highly doubtful whether Rupert Murdoch’s revelations fell into the above categories. It was degradation from the times of ‘The Spectator’ of Addison. If we are permitted to call ‘The Spectator’ as the witness consciousness, we may have to use the epithet ‘prying consciousness’ in case of Mr.Murdoch.
