Follow– Sudhanshu Karkala
As soon as I read news report (Feb 6) on Togadia’s rant, a response to Akbaruddin Owaisi’s speech, I thought the prime channels of the nation would pick that up for debate that day. 
Instead, the channels were busy covering Narendra Modi’s speech in a school in Delhi. (Of course, the topic he was asked to speak was “Emerging Business Model in the Global Scenario”. I wonder if he came anywhere near it!)
I was disappointed, of course, not surprised. The coverage he attracted gave an impression that he was presenting the country’s next budget. Through the day the channels played promos of evening ‘national debate’ sessions on his speech. The channels, in fact, took the Togadia issue on Thursday for discussion. However, the attention it attracted or the screen-space it received was meagre in comparison to Modi’s speech.
While Owaisi, in his speech, wanted the police be silent to finish Hindus, Togadia went on to state that whenever police had stood aside silent Hindus had the advantage. Togadia made it clear the police stood aside when Muslims were massacred during the incidents of Nelli (Assam), Bhagalpur (Bihar) and Gujarat in 2002.
Owaisi has been behind bars after a case was filed against him in Hyderabad. 
His brother Asaduddin Owaisi tried to fool the country by insisting the TV anchors to report it as ‘his alleged speech’, raising doubts on the video clips. However, so far Togadia has not done that. In fact, he defended his speech saying that he was just referring to instances of past.
The anger Owaisi attracted for his speech is absent in case of Togadia. Maharashtra government did not register the case until the Centre insisted it to book one. In both the cases more disturbing than the speeches were lusty cheers of the gatherings. The cheers inspired the speakers to spew more venom and spread the message of hatred in
strong words.
The people who hailed the speakers in both the cases lack humanity and have least respect for idea of ‘secular state’. These are the ones who have supported the electoral-politics rooted in communalism. Such people are everywhere and that is the reason why TV channels offer space on their prime-time news debates to such ‘hate speakers’.
If you recall who spent considerable time in studios of 
Kannada TV channel in the recent time the list would go with Go. Madhusudan, BJP MLC, Pramod Mutalik of Srirama Sene, Dr. Chidananda Murthy, a noted scholar among a few others.
TV crew prefer Pramod Mutalik or Madhusudan, despite knowing the fact very well that they are against to a particular community and hard-core communalists. Janashri News channel telecast the debate on Pramod Mutalik’s threat not to allow Indo-Pak cricket match in Bangalore repeatedly (at least thrice), knowing very well that the government would not allow his men barge into the stadium. The TV channels air such debates, because primarily their business is to ‘playing to the galleries’, which is filled with lusty cheer-leaders.