I must confess that I never quite expected the kind of response that the last blog I wrote got. A majority of those who have written in seem to feel that the cameraperson who covered the Patiala self-immolation was irresponsible and that he should have first made an attempt to rescue the individual instead of keeping the tape rolling. I appreciate the arguments that several of you have made and also the vigour with which they have been expressed. Its a tribute to our robust democracy that there are so many Indians who want to join public debate, who express themselves so freely on contentious issues. I remember when I did The Big Fight, one criticism of the programme was that there was too much heat, not enough light. My argument was that this is not the United Kingdom, where people have genteel fireside chats. In India, you tend to fiercely debate issues in the public glare, often with an ever-rising decibel level. A group of Scandinavians in a room will argue quietly. Indians will usually bring the house down.

And yet, I sometimes feel that a sharply polarised public opinion is bad for Indian democracy. It almost seems as if the middle ground is shrinking, that we are being forced to see issues in shades of black and white, when frankly we should be looking for the grey areas that complex issues demand. So, if you support the uniform civil code, you are immediately branded as someone who has sold out to the BJP. On the other hand, if you support autonomy for Kashmiris, you are branded anti-national. If you demand justice for riot victims in Gujarat, you are accused of being a "Muslim sympathiser" (never understood that one I must confess).

Why can't there be enough space in our public discourse and in our media for independent free thinkers? Why are we pigeonholed so easily? Why can't I support the idea of a uniform civil code simply because I believe it is good for our country without being accused of toeing the BJP line? Why can't a stand that supports greater autonomy for Kashmiris not be seen as a principled viewpoint without it being seen as a sell-out? And why can't justice for riot victims be seen as a desire to promote individual human rights? Do I have to scream from the rooftops that I also support the rehabilitation of the victims of Godhra and the pandits of Kashmir before I am seen as an "even-handed" secularist?

At IBN, we would like to believe in the Gandhian principle to keep our windows open to all shades of opinion without being swept away by any. I will respect the opinion of the viewer who says that the cameraperson in Patiala should have tried to douse the flames first. But viewers too should begin to appreciate that there may be contrary viewpoints which are not necessarily mala fide. Am I sounding too defensive? I hope not. All I am saying is this: I don't want the media playing God, and talking down to viewers. I respect your intelligence. Hope you will respect our professionalism. Heres hoping to a partnership based on mutual respect.