I often quote myself. It adds spice to my conversation.

I am silver and exact. I have no preconceptions.

Whatever I see I swallow immediately

Just as it is, unmisted by love or dislike.

I am not cruel, only truthful-

The eye of the little god, four cornered.(Sylvia Plath)

Swamy Vivekananda’s explanation about Indian culture in a meeting of Chicago inspired the people of the west that they wanted to follow the Indian tradition. But it is unfortunate that today we are forgetting out Indian culture and trying to follow foreign culture.

The discourteous dress code of Television anchors is an issue of provocation which is most neglected in common. They are getting popularity by their so laurelled style(stale and foul-mouthed) statement and anti social dressing sense. What makes a blind sense of fashion is their uncouth dressing, leaving a belt of skin in between the trousers and the top and that they are the idols of this generation. The normal Indian woman is definitely not what is projected by these media. It is really awful and unbecoming to find these dress codes are not only alien to our culture, but also detrimental to the very sartorial tradition. A pair of low-waist trousers, precariously adorned with the help of a belt which is strapped much longer than the waist-circumference, a couple of fingers most comfortably thrust into its front pockets, a not to forget avoirdupois face, atop all - a transgendered language sufficient enough to bring liters of bile that creates irresistible nausea which shake the listener’s normal thinking process is the general appearance of a tv anchor. The funniest thing is that all the above dress codes are of neuter gender or hermaphroditic .The only difference one may find is the finger and lip positions as to where and how they are thrust in and which one they find most flavoring for making the stylish statements. To cap it all, the anchor leaving a belt of skin between the trousers and the top, the width of which increases as the bottom and top pieces of cloth move down and up respectively in the process of their stylish actions. The viewers are to go with visual treats of dress, body and its language in all dimensions or switch off the tv to save themselves and families from the hai da argotic culture.

Most of the shows paint the town red in spreading the semi-nude bare bosom culture through fashion parades and ramp shows exhibiting models wearing little or no clothes. The designers who whim to get all eyes caught are inclined to cut down the length and breadth of all kinds of clothing. The state of the self-styled entertainment channels, blighted by live shows dominating the television, is even worse. Vulgarity seems to be the entry gate to wealth and fame. Some anchors look as if they have just been pulled out of their bathrooms giving aspiration whether they were dressing or undressing when this most heinous act took place. Some females are found in dresses that depict a different picture altogether, leaving the viewers with all their faculties of imagination and fancy. It is this pecuniary fancy that goes into the making of these anti-social acts, obscene exhibitionisms, disgusting physical and linguistic affectations towards our women out in the public, in buses, trains and at every possible and impossible terrains. It is thwarting that theirs is not native cultural language, dress code or socially accepted facial expressions. They take pride in the foolhardy mix of dresses, languages and mannerisms.

We need a decent dress code for our anchors who very much influence people in a 24/7 grid, to protect our families from atrocious sartorial insanities. We have a tendency of calculating everything in terms of money. Channels, producers and programmers are aware that air time is their costliest factor, and if failed to invite maximum attention in such times of extreme market value, their very existence would be devoured by competing channels that manipulate to hoodwink their clientele and win a few points in the viewership index. As the media people know that vulgarity sells well, they resort to cheap gimmicks to increase their ratings.

A code for self-regulation of electronic media has long been a cry in the wilderness. In the fiercely competitive world of liberalization and globalization it is foolish to expect voluntary restraint from the media. The oddball media tycoons, addicted to making pots of money through crass commercial ventures at the expense of social harmony, welfare, public decency and morality, will never respond positively to the calls of self-regulation. They forget the fact that understanding people includes understanding their society. The media which is possible to reach out to the vast majority of the population of a country must function as the major source of cultural communication molders and perpetrators of social images. And this possibility makes the media, be the press, the radio, the television or the film the critical and significant force in the discourse of social formation. The compact visual media(tv) is a more efficient mass communication which is of extreme interest to the society, to women and children in particular. The area of its influence and reach is immense. This source of mass communication occupies the private and the personal shells of the home, conventionally regarded as the domain of the whole irrespective of their being home makers, students or workers. Economic compulsions, social norms, communal considerations or gender bias do not hinder its viewership in any way.

Confronted with catch me (mine) if you can actions and poses of anchors, many parents respond that their children aren't allowed to watch such programs, as the dangers are more insidious and commendable. It now appears that simply watching television for long periods can manipulate one’s view of the world and family itself. Obviously something must be done. Parents and society must come forward to initiate actions to prevent this increasing nude art. We have the responsibility to make a difference and apply appropriate principles in order to help stem the tide of ruin of a generation.

It is ultimately the sensible viewers’ own moral compass which must decide if something is enough. The only remedy lies in a powerful popular movement to re-instill a modicum of sanity and obviate obscene displays.