Tamil talk shows: Maintaining tradition in the new public sphere

Introduction

Tracing the origin of the public sphere in the life of the polis of classical Greece (500–400 BCE), Jürgen Habermas’ thesis provides a historical account of public debate and its subsequent rise and fall in the context of the development of democracy alongside the advent of media communications and technologies in modern Western Europe. In this article, we argue that the culture of public debate can be found in the Indian subcontinent much earlier than in Western Europe, through the Indian argumentative tradition (c. 3000 BC) and the ancient Tamil Sangam (college/confluence) era (c. 350 BC–400 AD). By examining Neeya? Naana? (literally You? or Me?), a contemporary Indian television talk show produced in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, this article contends that the ancient argumentative tradition continues to exist in the contemporary Indian media in a newer iteration of the public sphere. South India’s television talk shows combine structured debating methods that have their antecedent in the argumentative and Sangam era traditions that enforce etiquettes of discussion and result in the maintenance of conservative cultural values.

Comprehending the heterogeneity of a national India is vital in understanding the vibrant yet vulnerable democracy and the multiple public spheres that can be seen to exist in the subcontinent. India is an extremely diverse country where localized state or provincial ethno-linguistic contradictions and cultural conflicts are part of everyday life. Hence, it is important to acknowledge the complexities of the many Indian cultures to avoid a reductionist understanding centred exclusively on Hindu/Hindu-centric views. With that in mind, we interrogate this form of Tamil media to illustrate a non-hegemonic view of the place of TV talk shows in the public sphere.

The talk show: Indian style

The popular talk show Neeya? Naana? (You? or Me?) is telecast on the STAR Vijay television channel, a part of the global chain of TV networks operated by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. This channel emerged as a result of the economic liberalization policy adopted by the Indian government in 1991, following the balance of payments crisis in the late 1980s. Until 1991, the landscape of broadcast media was directly controlled by the state, with only one television channel, Doordarshan, characterized as a ‘notoriously monotonous and unimaginative state monopoly which was uncharitably labelled as being a mouthpiece of the government of the day – a status that it rarely challenged’ (Thussu, 2007: 594). This description could easily be viewed as a rather accurate assessment of the status of the entire broadcast media in pre-1991 India. As elsewhere, Murdoch transformed the broadcasting ecology of India through his pan-Asian network, STAR (Satellite Television Asian Region). With American shows such as Baywatch, Santa Barbara and The Bold and the Beautiful, STAR television attracted India’s English-savvy urban elite and the nation’s youth audience. With his keen awareness of the commercial potential of the disparate ethno-linguistic cultures in India, Murdoch soon expanded his television network through more localized programmes and channels. D.K. Thussu (2007: 594) points out that Murdoch initiated

the first music television channel in India (Channel [V]); the first 24/7 news network (Star News); the first successful adaptation of an international game show (Kaun Banega Crorepati? – an Indian version of Who Wants to Be A Millionaire?) and the first reality TV series (Lakme Fashion Show).

Murdoch’s Indian TV empire has continued to grow ever since.

The STAR Vijay channel emerged during the opening of India’s media landscape to foreign investment to not only cater to the needs of Tamils in India but also the extensive global Tamil diaspora, courtesy of the growing influence of satellite networks and online sites such as YouTube. Similar to the 40 other television channels (in seven different Indian languages) in the STAR television network, the STAR Vijay channel claims itself to be at the forefront of Indian entertainment in its broadcast of innovative and popular programmes (STAR Vijay, 2014). Although other Tamil networks broadcast talk shows, such as Arattai Arangam (Chat Theatre, Sun TV), Makkal Arangam (People’s Theatre, Jaya TV) and Nil Gavani Sol (Stop, Listen, Say, Zee Tamizh), Neeya? Naana? stands out from the rest for four central reasons. First, Neeya? Naana? is hosted by acclaimed former journalist Gopinath, while Arattai Arangam and Makkal Arangam are hosted by film actors/directors and Nil Gavani Sol is hosted by popular radio announcer Saha. While Nil Gavani Sol adopted a similar format to Neeya? Naana?, it was not seen as a credible journalistic-style debate programme and struggled to attract viewers. Second, channels like Sun TV and Jaya TV are affiliates of the two mutually antagonistic Dravidian political parties, while STAR Vijay is perhaps the only Tamil television channel without any direct affiliation to any political party (aside from Murdoch’s varying political alignments); therefore, the talk shows of the other leading television channels are seen as under direct political influence. Third, for almost a decade, Neeya? Naana? has been noted for its ability to consistently feature a wide range of topics, from mundane issues to more serious matters, such as the relevance of trade unions in the increasingly corporatized Indian job environment. Finally, Neeya? Naana? is the only Tamil talk show that does not appear to treat its audiences as gullible, passive viewers, but as active participants with an appetite for open discussions on contemporary, intellectually stimulating issues.

Neeya? Naana? is aired weekly and has been telecast since 2006. Hosted by Chandran Gopinath (known in the Tamil tradition by only a single name – Gopinath), the show revolves around the arguments and counter-arguments of two separate studio-based groups on personal, socio-political and cultural issues. The groups of around 20–25 participants sit in bleacher-style seating, each group angled towards the camera (the home viewers), but physically separated by the stage, with the host also facing towards the camera, but turning either left or right as he addresses each group. In its regular terrestrial broadcast, the show has regular sponsors with frequent and long commercial breaks. But beyond attracting its initial viewers on Vijay, this talk show is highly popular online through its YouTube channel (sans its regular TV commercials), with more than 1.5 million subscribers. Many Neeya? Naana? episodes have been viewed more than 100,000 times. One episode that features the theme of romance (dated 3 March 2013) has been viewed over 500,000 times. While deliberating and debating upon various issues, the programme often deals with taboo subjects such as sexuality (4 July 2013), and with its caption promising ‘freedom of speech’, the programme claims that ‘it brings the polarized sections of the society onto a single platform and encourages them to iron out the differences’ (STAR Vijay, 2014).

The subject matter of Neeya? Naana? varies from hard-edged politics to sentimentally loaded topics such as the ways in which people yearn for their mother’s cooking or young people giving their accounts of the love and affection of their maternal uncles (given the socio-anthropological significance of the mentoring role played by maternal uncles in patriarchal Tamil society). The show also features sensitive topics, such as the struggles of being a transgender person in contemporary India. Other topics include economics, such as family budgeting and wage discrimination against women, or controversial health issues, such as unnecessary medical tests prescribed by allopathic doctors (this particular episode outraged the conventional medical fraternity across Tamil Nadu). Recently, Neeya? Naana? featured a lively and controversial debate on the traditional Tamil sport of Jallikattu (bullfighting), which differs considerably from the Spanish sport because the bulls are not physically harmed or killed, but celebrated. Despite this approach to the animals, Jallikattu was banned by the Supreme Court of India on the grounds that the sport is harmful for the animals.

With an extravagant display of art direction, Neeya? Naana? looks and feels more like a game show than a talk show, making full use of sweeping crane shots as the camera swoops towards the host and his guests. It invariably begins with a soliloquy from Gopinath (who regularly appears in a suit and has been nicknamed ‘coat Gopi’ by his fans) as he stands in the empty space between the two teams of guests, a staged space where celebrity or other key guests are invited during the later part of the show. Although there is no visible studio audience, the sound of (possibly recorded) applause suggests the involvement of a studio audience. The programme setting importantly ‘relies on triangulation between guests and hosts, and the studio and home audience, each of whom already occupies a culturally constituted position’ (Petkanas, 2014: 696). The formulaic format of the programme begins with the host’s introduction and, often, a short video clip contextualizing the episode’s theme, followed by a presentation of views, in-depth discussion and debates on the theme, a series of expert opinions or arguments, and a conclusion, which is often open-ended. At the end of the show, the host presents a gift to the ‘expert’, chosen by the guest as the ‘best’ debater. The programme’s structure allows for a generally calm beginning with a series of introductory dialogues that often ascend to noisy and heated debates, all carefully managed with good grace by the host.

The host and participants speak both Tamil and English, often combining both languages in what may be referred to as Tamlish. This bilingual feature excludes the urban poor and the rural populace since the English language is a luxury that they cannot afford. By paying close attention to the dress, jewellery and slang of the participants, one can also identify (or make informed assumptions about) their socio-economic status. These participants generally come from the English-educated, urban, middle-class Tamil population. More often, the participants may speak in a privileged form of Brahminical Tamil slang that further identifies their favoured position in the caste hierarchy. Most episodes feature a prominent number of women guests who actively participate in the debates. In one episode, the topic of discussion was feminism, which ostensibly opened up the debate and demonstrated the formidable presence of women, reflecting the broader concepts of the Indian public sphere and the inclusive nature of public debate foregrounded by the historical argumentative and Sangam traditions outlined later in this article.

Public sphere: An overview

German sociologist Jürgen Habermas (born 1929) most famously expounded on the public sphere in The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (Habermas, 1989 [1962]). Treating the public sphere as an historical category, Habermas viewed it as ‘a realm in which individuals gather to participate in open discussions’ (Holub, 1991: 3). Identifying the attributes of the classical Graeco-Roman public sphere in 17th-century Great Britain and 18-century France, Habermas discussed different categories of public spheres – the bourgeois public sphere (the locus of his book), the literary public sphere, the political public sphere and the plebeian public sphere – based on their historical context and the topics that were discussed. The principles of equality and accessibility can be found in these public spheres. Besides its potential for allowing all members of society to deliberate on different matters, the striking feature of Habermas’ public sphere is its democratic ethos. According to Habermas, deliberation through the public sphere is important to democracy; however, after rising to prominence in the late 19th century, the significance of the public sphere began to decline in the 20th century, primarily due to the concentration of media ownership and the dominance of consumer capitalism.

The fundamental idea behind Habermas’ public sphere theory is to understand the relationship between the state and its citizens. In ancient Greece and Rome, one can find evidence of citizens participating in public debates regarding governance of the state. We will explore later in this article how India shared similar democratic values in the Sangam period and through a much broader Indian argumentative tradition. Habermas (1989 [1962]) writes,

In the fully developed Greek city-state the sphere of the polis, which was common (koine) to the free citizens, was strictly separated from the sphere of the oikos; in the sphere of the oikos, each individual is his own realm. (p. 3)

In this sense, the polis served as a realm of ‘freedom and permanence’ (Habermas, 1989 [1962]: 4). This is the place where individuals gathered and engaged in consultation with each other concerning issues ranging from sports (namely, the athletic games that were popular at the time) to waging war. Maintaining a temporal equality, this dialogical space allowed everyone access to it. However, it was only during the epoch of mercantile capitalism in the 16th century that the meaning of public debate departed from the domain of courtly life. The laid-back culture of bourgeois families played a significant role in the development of the public sphere. In the comfort of the secured and sophisticated lifestyle, individuals started to think freely and probe into the conditions of hierarchy and authority.

In this bourgeois public sphere, public discussion took place through various forums, owing its emergence to the development of the printing press. The elite saw the issues in the newspapers and journals as springboards to initiate public debates and to interrogate the authorities. The debating public spread throughout the cities of early modern Europe in cafés, lodges and literary salons, where the ‘critical functions of dialogue and debate were celebrated as a kind of social good’ (Elliott, 2009: 160). Habermas, nonetheless, contrasted such dynamic public debate with the contemporary public sphere of the early 20th century where there was a breakdown between the state and civil society. The probing aspects of the public sphere had substantially been reduced due to the commercialization of the media. Concluding that the discursive process is administered, Habermas observed that the dilution of the quality of public debate and the demise of the public sphere was a result of ‘refeudalisation’. According to Habermas, such a development – a direct result of the commercialization of media, growth of the culture industries and a corrosive capitalist bureaucracy – affected not only the relationship between the public and private domains of life but also the politics behind it.

Habermas’ account of the development and decline of the public sphere has some limitations as well, with one critic claiming that Habermas’ work was ‘marred by a typically male and Western overestimation of “reason” itself’ (Elliott, 2009: 162). Furthermore, Robert C. Holub (1991) argues that after including countries such as the United States and Japan in his analysis, Habermas had to narrow down the scope of his definition of the public sphere, particularly in the aspects regarding family and welfare state. Holub sees this narrowing of scope as a major shortcoming compounded by Habermas’ oscillation between normative concepts and historical accounts of the public sphere. Despite these shortcomings and the difficulties of prescribing a universal set of parameters, the notion of the public sphere can be a helpful heuristic tool for understanding the contemporary era where people engage in socio-political discussions through new platforms such as television talk shows and social media. Elliott (2009) explains,

The current media age is certainly not identical with Habermas’ portrait of the demise of the public sphere, and it seems evident that what social theory now requires is a framework of analysis for the public sphere that is relevant to transformations of twenty-first-century social life. (p. 163)

Considering the above quotation, the public sphere can be viewed as taking many forms in the contemporary West. Questions arise, however, about the prevalence of similar ideas beyond the West, such as in the Indian subcontinent, and what happens to the diverse public spheres of India in the globalized media environment. One way to begin to analyse this is by drawing on the work of the Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen into India’s long argumentative tradition.

The argumentative tradition

Amartya Sen’s The Argumentative Indian: Writings in Indian Culture, History and Identity (2005) is a collection of essays that examines the long history of the argumentative tradition in India. Sen explores its contemporary relevance and its relative neglect in ongoing cultural discussions. Historicizing public discussion and heterodoxy in ancient Indian texts such as Rig Veda (c. 3000–2000 BCE), Sen rejects the reductive view of India as a nation defined only by notions of Hindu civilization, but rather as a place where religious scepticism and dialogic combats are culturally intertwined. Sen (2005) points out,

It was indeed a Buddhist emperor of India, Ashoka, who, in the third century BCE, not only outlined the need for toleration and the richness of heterodoxy, but also laid down what are perhaps the oldest rules for conducting debates and disputations, with the opponents being ‘duly honoured in every way on all occasions’. (pp. xii–xiii)

In other words, besides nullifying the Hindu-centric view of ancient India, this quotation illustrates practices such as debating and respecting the opponent that existed in ancient India by granting an equal opportunity to all participants (as outlined below). Claiming that India has been multicultural for centuries, Sen demonstrates the prevalence of practices such as public debate, discussion, heterodoxy and tolerance, and by arguing that India has been a home to cultural pluralism, he reiterates that the subcontinent has been an abode of (mostly) harmonious co-existence of theist and atheist beliefs. Asserting further that the argumentative tradition existed in the Vedic times (c. 1500–500 BCE), where one can find arguments and counter-arguments about the existence of God, Sen provides details on the culture of discussion during these and other ancient and medieval times through evidence from literary and archaeological sources, particularly from the reigns of the ancient Buddhist Emperor Ashoka (268–232 BCE) and the medieval Muslim Emperor Akbar (1556–1605 CE).

While tracing the significance of the dialogic tradition in Bhagvad Gita, a small section of the great Indian literary epic Mahabharata, Sen finds relevance in its secular arguments that mirror similar ways of handling conflicts through debate in contemporary India. Issues of gender, caste and class are often at the forefront of such debates. Unlike Habermas’ public sphere, which had been exclusively a domain of men, the story of the argumentative tradition in ancient India was much more complex. Although the participation of women or people from different castes was less pronounced, their engagement in public deliberation had been significant. Sen (2005) provides an example from the Upanisads, the dialectical treatises of the 8th century BCE, where a woman scholar, Gargi, engaged in a sharp intellectual interrogation with authorities. Some of the other celebrated women scholar-debaters are Andal, a 9th-century Tamil saint from South India; Mira Bai, a 16th-century saint-poet; Daya-bai and Sahajo Bai, 18th-century poets and the disciples of the Bania saint, Charan Das. It is important to take note that the challenges to religious orthodoxy often came from women scholars.

Women were not the only group to be seen as agitators for change, just as vocal were members of the socially disadvantaged castes. ‘Lower’ castes and classes were represented by literary exponents and well-known, often sage-like figures such as Kabir, a weaver and influential poet; Dadu, a textile labourer, specifically a cotton carder (a taxing and generally low-regarded form of manual labour); and other representatives of the lower castes/classes such as Ravidas (a shoemaker) and Sena (a barber). Furthermore, Sen observes that many counter-arguments against authorities are recorded in the epics, indicating the presence of public scepticism towards the ruling elites even in the early days. Sen (2005) observes,

There is also a genealogical scepticism expressed in another ancient document, the Bhavisya Purana: ‘Since members of all the four castes [Varnas] are children of God, they all belong to the same caste. All human beings have the same father, and children of the same father cannot have different castes’. These doubts do not win the day, but their expressions are obliterated in the classical account of the debates between different points of view. (p. 11)

Thus, the ways in which people from the lower castes and working class asserted their opposition to caste discrimination demonstrate the existence in ancient India of the principle of equal access to participate in public deliberation.

Sen acknowledges the role of Buddhism in establishing and maintaining open discussions, arguing that India was a Buddhist country for over a thousand years and Buddhism played an influential role in the growth of open discussions. He makes particular reference to the Buddhist councils whose aim was to settle disputes from different points of view of Buddhism. Delegates from different places and faiths attended these councils. According to Sen (2005: 15), by around 400 BCE, the first of the four principal councils was held in Rajagriha shortly after Gautama Buddha’s death, while the last one was organized by Emperor Ashoka in the 3rd century BCE in the North Indian city of Pataliputra. Emperor Ashoka ensured that such public discussions took place without animosity or violence between parties.

In the 16th century, Mughal Emperor Akbar (ruled from 1556 to 1605 CE) was an outstanding visionary of medieval India. He regularly organized meetings where he listened to the debates of the public and scholars from different religious faiths. In fact, he attempted to start a new religion, Din-ilahi (God’s religion), by embracing selected aspects of different faiths including Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, Jainism, Judaism and even atheism. However, this tolerant approach was unsuccessful in creating a new religion due to fierce resistance from the ruling conservatives, but it enabled forthright and open discussions on ethics and behaviour beyond the constraints of existing theological and moral debates.

There is an interesting intersection between the ideas of Habermas and Amartya Sen. While both of them note a certain disintegration of public deliberation in modern times, Sen is not as pessimistic as Habermas who predicts a demise of the public sphere in the modern era. Admitting that India is an imperfect democracy, Sen argues that the faults of religious intolerance in contemporary India can be overcome by probing into its ancient argumentative traditions. However, his caveat calls for an inclusive approach, rather than a narrow-minded canonicity of Hindu fundamentalism. Therefore, both Habermas and Sen offer their respective normative theses of public deliberation.

Sangam literature of the ancient Tamils

According to records, ancient Tamil scholars, kings and the public often assembled to discuss various issues such as governance, trade, war and love in the South Indian city of Madurai. Although there was no consensus among historians about the exact period of the Sangam era, it is estimated to have existed c. 350 BCE to 400 CE. The poems in Sangam literature provide a detailed account of the different aspects of life, culture, polity and society of Tamils in South India back to ancient times. Secular by nature, these poems deal with the everyday themes of life. More than 400 poets – comprising both men and women, and people from all walks of life – composed over 2000 poems. The eminent Tamil historian, K A. Nilakanda Sastri (1955), writes,

In the poems of Sangam anthologies, the Tamil language has reached maturity and begun to serve as a powerful and elegant medium of literary expression, and has already received and assimilated many words and ideas from Sanskrit sources. It also reflects the existence of a fairly elaborate code of conventions governing the portrayal of social life in literature. This must clearly have been the result of a long course of development spread over some generations. (p. 112)

The aforementioned quotation provides an insight into at least two realms pertaining to the public sphere. First, Tamil literature attained its zenith as a result of a long inter-generational development. In other words, such a development arose as an outcome of regular interaction and debate among scholars and the public. Second, Sastri’s reference to the ‘reception and assimilation of words and ideas from Sanskrit sources’ emphasizes the interaction between the two disparate linguistic traditions (Sanskrit and Tamil) of ancient India.

Tamil society during the Sangam era followed a system of hereditary monarchy where the king enjoyed supreme status; however, he constantly consulted with wise men, ministers and poets regarding governance. The king adhered to customary practices where the Nalavai (executive council) and Manram (general assembly) were the institutional features of daily life. Importantly, both of these gatherings were open to all. The king was updated on the affairs of the state through the Nalavai, where he heard and addressed the complaints of the public. The Manram played an important role in social and religious life and was attended by elders, experts and the public. This was also the place where the king adjudicated disputes. More informally,

Each village had its common place of meeting, generally under the shade of a big tree, where men, women and children met for all the common activities of the village, including sports and pastimes. There may also have been a political side to these rural gatherings, the germ out of which grew the highly organised system of village government which functioned so admirably in later Chola [c. 900–1279 CE] times. (Sastri, 1955: 128)

Even today, one can witness the practice of gathering under the shade of a tree to deliberate, discuss and consult with fellow citizens regarding important matters. When the British introduced the tea culture in the subcontinent, the Tamils soon embraced the concept of the Tea Kadai bench that became the place where the public gathered and deliberated. Even today, the right-wing Tamil newspaper, Dinamalar, publishes its unverified news through a regular column under the heading of Tea Kadai Bench. In this popular column, Dinamalar features a scoop as if four men (sans woman) from different socio-religious backgrounds were discussing matters of socio-political significance in a tea shop (Dinamalar, 2014). This long-running column in a post-independent Indian newspaper reflects the continuity of the argumentative and public debate traditions in Tamil Nadu. Paralleling the South Indian tea shops with the European cafés or piazzas in the evolution of public deliberation, Sashi Kumar (2014) argues that an Indian tea shop is a nodal point where arguments take place in the secular spirit with an inclusive political awareness. As we illustrate in the next section, South India’s contemporary television talk shows reflect the traditional loquaciousness of the Tamils and are the metamorphoses of the ancient dialogical culture of the Tamils.

Media, talk shows and the public sphere

Media programmes such as television talk shows, which involve open debate and active participation of the audience, have the potential to create a democratic space. These aspects bring talk shows closer to the Habermasian notion of the public sphere. As a popular genre, talk shows appear on television channels across the world and disseminate thousands of stories – personal, political and social – every day. It is not only the ‘ordinary’ citizens from the general public who get to participate in the debates and discussions of talk shows but also experts in various fields who express their views and listen to the views of others. Audiences participate by watching the programmes on television and by interacting with them through such means as voting in talk show polls and sharing their comments through social media. While some critics dismiss talk shows as trash/cheap TV, others emphasize their benefits. For Peter Lunt and Paul Stenner (2005), at least three different talk show formats exist, namely, public discussion (such as the United Kingdom’s Question Time or Australia’s Q&A or Insight), emotionally cathartic or therapeutic (such as The Oprah Winfrey Show, The Ellen DeGeneres Show or Dr Phil) and conflict talk shows (such as The Jerry Springer Show).

Despite criticisms of the talk show format, they are one of the most widely watched television genres today, with hosts such as Oprah Winfrey celebrated worldwide. In discussing the ubiquity of television talk shows, Robert McKenzie (2000) identifies the factors that are responsible for their popularity. First, on the production side, talk shows are more cost-effective than syndicated programming, requiring a simple set for the host and guests. Second, the growing culture of interactive television allows audiences to participate in these programmes, thanks to technological devices such as smartphones. These advancements increase the collective audience, comprising people at home, at work and on the move. Third, talk shows are popular due to their variety in terms of guests, topics and approaches to discussions varying from light-hearted to deeply serious. Moreover, talk shows attract large diasporic audiences through social media platforms, particularly YouTube.

In a democracy, media plays an intercessory role between the state and its citizens by providing an institutionalized opportunity for the latter to talk about their issues. In other words, media is the sphere where the public may engage in deliberation with the established power elite. Is this deliberation, nonetheless, truly representative of the citizens? For Sonia Livingstone and Peter Lunt (2001), Habermas’ take on media is ambivalent because of his view of the media as a detrimental force to democracy, an institution that causes the disintegration of the public sphere since the media are unable to offer a ‘rational-critical opinion’, but a ‘pseudo-public sphere’ (Livingstone and Lunt, 2001: 10). However, Habermas is hopeful that the media might generate a ‘critical consensus, if unfettered by institutional control’ (Livingstone and Lunt, 2001: 10). Questions therefore arise as to how far media can be viewed as democratic and whether this allows for the consideration of television talk shows as public spheres. The contemporary Indian media provides a site in which to analyse the democratic and representative aspects of such a mediated public sphere.

Highlighting the plurality of religion, race, ethnicity and culture in India, Amir Ali (2001) argues that India’s perceived public spheres are inaccessible to minorities, thereby failing to reflect the minorities’ perspectives. He maintains that the public is ‘defined and dominated by the majoritarian values and norms, which have been considered neutral’ (Ali, 2001: 2419). Despite having a long tradition of public deliberation, the present mediated public sphere in India was influenced largely by the colonial British and partly by the freedom movement of the locals. The colonial government in India did not interact with the masses, but only with the elites, who were handpicked by the British officials to represent the masses. These representatives enjoyed privileged positions in the British raj and continued to receive the same privileges after independence. One such example is the dominance of Brahmins in South India. Referring to the Brahmin as a ‘colonial hybrid’, M.S.S. Pandian (2007) argues that they constitute only about 2 per cent of the population in Tamil Nadu, but control more than 90 per cent of the educational and economic institutions. In terms of media ownership, the print media is still dominated by Brahmins (Jeffrey, 1997), and each print media extends its influence by owning a respective network of the broadcast media. Emphasizing the total absence of Dalits (untouchable castes) in the Indian media, Robin Jeffrey (2007) asserts that advertisers ignore the lower castes because of the latter’s poor economic conditions. In addition, Jeffrey notes that Tamil broadcast media are highly politicized as each major political party in the state owns a television channel. In this context, therefore, the public sphere is influenced by ‘the consumption of culture [that] also enters the service of economic and political propaganda’ (Habermas, 1989 [1962]: 176). So how then does a programme such as Neeya? Naana? reflect this iteration of the public sphere?

One of the recurrent and distinctive features of Neeya? Naana? is its ability to bring together experts – academics, medical doctors, social activists, legal luminaries and film personalities – and ordinary citizen participants. This enhances the complexity and sophistication of the show since it is very rare for these two sections of society to meet with each other on a common platform. In a deeply polarized, highly politicized and numerically overwhelming Tamil media environment, Neeya? Naana? is innovative by providing an avenue to talk about the ethno-linguistic ontological issues of the Tamils while finding the means to directly connect with the public.

Who talks in the talk show: Neeya? Naana?

Who talks, or is given the platform to talk, on Neeya? Naana? is a result of the design of the programme by its creator, producer and director, Anthony Thirunelveli. Anthony (carrying on the Tamil tradition of using a single name, in this case, a Western name) provides the thematic concepts and arranges for experts to appear on the programme. Both Anthony and Gopinath are former journalists who hail from a rural background and have been collaborating on Neeya? Naana? since it first aired. Gopinath (2015) openly acknowledges that Anthony provides the show’s themes and lead questions, which he gleans from spending time in the tea shops (and cafes) where he can interact with ordinary people. As noted, tea shops are where the public gather and have played a vital role in Tamil culture and the development of the argumentative tradition. Anthony’s interaction with ordinary people is a way of establishing and ensuring a connection between the tea shop deliberations and the more sophisticated televised public debate found on Neeya? Naana?

The episode of Neeya? Naana? screened on 10 March 2013 featured a debate titled ‘Do Indian women feel safe in the country?’, an episode that has subsequently had over 100,000 views on YouTube. This episode was conducted in the aftermath of the infamous Delhi gang-rape incident in December 2012. All the guest participants in this episode were women. At the beginning of the show, the host explained why it took 3 months for them to debate such a disturbing issue. He said that the organizers of the show did not want an ‘emotional outburst’, but to provide a ‘constructive solution’ to this problem. Such an introduction nevertheless would play into producers’ desires to create a programme that is controversial both in its ability to charge ‘the debate with emotion’ and to ‘achieve “confrontainment” by structuring the show’s environment to be conflict-prone and confrontational’ (Petkanas, 2014: 696). Although the tokenistic presence of non-Hindu women is visible, they are clearly outnumbered by the Hindu participants, who are commonly identified by the vermillion streak on their forehead. One needs to see this with reference to the non-Hindu population of India, particularly Muslims, whose population exceeds that of the total population of the United Kingdom and France combined. Another aspect was the proficiency of the participants in the English language, a sign of their upper socio-economic and educational status.

During the course of the programme, the host asked the participants to disclose unsafe places – where they were bullied, threatened and sexually assaulted – in Tamil Nadu. A young woman narrated that she was sexually assaulted on three separate occasions in one of the more exclusive and presumably safe areas in Chennai. On one occasion, she lodged an official complaint in the police station, but the officials ignored her complaint. This open forum reflects Lunt and Stenner’s (2005: 61) claim that the talk show provides an institutionally constrained space that offers some opportunity for the expression of marginal voices that would not be heard in public otherwise. It is widely recognized that women in India are marginalized and any discussion such as disclosing unsafe places would rarely occur in the mainstream media. However, the women in this episode were given space to voice their opinions. Such open views tend to validate the criticisms against talk shows that they stress the maintenance of the status quo which reproduces conservative power relations (Hammer and Kellner, 2005). However, it should be noted that the host expresses more traditional values on upholding chastity by dressing modestly and the expert or celebrity guests list a number of ways in which women can ensure their safety, which apparently means to protect their chastity. This advice blurs the boundary between the rhetoric of being safe and blaming the victim.

Another important feature of this episode of Neeya? Naana? is the delineation of the ill-effects of casteism, cultural deprivation, institutional injustices and familial favouritism to males. Such social practices were cited as reasons behind the violence against women. One ‘expert’ claimed that men were insecure, which led to increasing atrocities against women, who strive to change their educational and employment status. Some participants underscored the socially sanctioned isolation of rape victims, vulnerability of the victims’ families, institutional failures and political powerlessness. With the occasional emotive outbursts and personal attacks, this episode depicted a genuinely intellectual discussion that gave women an opportunity to speak their mind. However, the show still demonstrated an inescapable conservative reality and a socially compulsive tendency of women to guard their chastity. The appearance of an egalitarian public sphere is reiterated, but within the confines of a traditionally conservative, and ultimately patriarchal, culture.

Conclusion

Television talk shows such as Neeya? Naana? undoubtedly act as a realm for public participation, deliberation and expression while providing a new forum for storytelling by encouraging a participatory culture. As Petkanas (2014) notes in relation to Tunisian talk shows, they provide ‘both a platform and a productive force for pluralized and political identities’ to reach a broader audience (p. 695). However, the representation of the participants is limited to urban, middle-class professionals and university/college students. Even among these participants, only a handful of them get to register their views in the media. It is true that India has the largest middle-class population in the world, yet the majority of the population in India live in rural areas. With the lowest literacy level in the country, these people’s views are not represented in talk shows. While the participants showcase the liberal Western influences in contemporary India, they still reflect conservative values and reinforce the traditional norms by instructing women on how to dress and how to behave. The power imbalance between the participants and the producers of the show is another limitation of the mediated public sphere where the producers exercise their prerogative to edit the segments in the post-production process. Moreover, left-wing critics argue that Neeya? Naana? dismisses the real issues of Tamil society such as political corruption, institutional sexism and the organizational apathy to popular protests against controversies such as the condition of nuclear power plants and the un-investigated murders of Tamil fishermen (Vinavu, 2014).

More importantly, Neeya? Naana? is able to attract a broad age demographic of viewers since the director and the host adopt an inclusive approach in choosing themes and studio-audience participants. In a paternalistic Tamil television milieu, such an approach may well be seen as innovative. In addition to the popularity of the charismatic, internationally recognized Gopinath, who has a cult following for his motivational speeches (and was invited to speak in the United States in 2004 by the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs), Neeya? Naana?’s willingness to engage with the public rests on its ability to present meaningful discussion on issues ranging from the mundane rivalry between the fans of film stars (Ajith and Vijay) to more serious issues such as the continuation of the dowry system. As host, Gopinath is skilful in his command of the Tamil language, his use of mannerisms, intonations and temperament while handling heated debates. His tactful way of handling difficult participants during the programme allows him to retain control of the debate. Gopinath’s ability to project Neeya? Naana? as a contemporary form of the polis also allows for the perception of a dynamic and democratic public sphere, despite some minor criticisms of him being deliberately oblivious to some participants.

Overall, this article asserts that the history of India’s public sphere can be traced to its argumentative tradition and ancient Tamil Sangam literature. By establishing a relationship between these traditions and the Habermasian public sphere, the article emphasizes that the Indian public sphere is not merely a by-product of colonialism. However, the Indian public sphere – which pre-dates the Graeco-Roman public sphere – has evolved and thrived by adjusting to colonial and post-colonial developments. The democratizing potential of broadcast television talk shows allows India’s multiple public spheres, from the bourgeois to the plebeian, to temporarily merge. Neeya? Naana? is one such example of television as a site of democratized debate, albeit one constrained by mainstream mores.