What has this got to do with television? Pretty much everything if we accept that it's a magnifying mirror of reality, that it reflects and refracts our view of the world, that more than any other media, it celebrates violence, contrives to exploit it in much the same way as the Fire-fighters do.

In USA, 1968 is considered a defining year of television: the Vietnam war, the race riots, the assassinations of Robert Kennedy, Martin LutherKing -- violence -- became a part of every American's life experience in a way previous wars, deaths had not because of television images. Or was it 1962? Remember the faintly fuzzy shots of President Kennedy's body sagging under the weight of Oswald's bullets?In India the defining moment on TV, as indeed otherwise, was 6 December, 1992. Doordarshan may have refused to show the demolition of Babri Masjid; others were less coy. Who can forget the sight of young armed men scampering up and down the dome of that `structure' (as it was often referred to), striking blows for Hindutva? Everything since is history.In last week's episode of Question Time India (BBC World), the panelists were asked if India had become a more violent, less tolerant society. Yes, they answered. On India Talks, (CNBC Asia), Shabana Azmi was asked how she would respond to the view that one-sex relationships were not Indian. ``And the violence outside the cinema halls is?'' she replied rhetorically. Which leads us straight into Satya'aarms. The film's violence prompted an `A' rating. STAR Plus was to telecast it at 9.30pm (26 December) and if you thought Satya looked curiously like Amitabh Bachchan, it was because the film had been postponed to 11.30pm. Had the channel suddenly developed cold feet, a conscience? Media reports allege Star was conscience-stricken by the Cable Networks Act which prohibits `A' movies at prime time TV, but let's give it the benefit of the doubt.Does Shaktimaan (DD1) deserve the same indulgence? The serial, supposedly, led a few kids to set themselves on fire in the childish (?) hope that the serial's eponymous superhero would come to their rescue. It beggars belief: are children so utterly naive as to suppose that a man can fly? That he can simply be conjured out of nothing, like a figment of their imagination? Actor Mukesh Khanna claims the reports have been invented to harm him; others say he invented them in a cynical and diabolical plot (worthy of his serial) to gain publicity. What is irrefutable is thatchildren have been known to jump off rooftops in imitation of him. So: either there are children who believe everything they see on the box, and/or like Icarus their ambition is to soar, perchance to fly.

Superheroes are commonplace in other cultures: Superman and Batman have enjoyed long and successful careers. Possibly, childen everywhere have wanted to be like them. But for most of them, Superman was first a comic strip character; he only became a `human being' much later. In the case of Shaktimaan it's the other way around: Mukesh Khanna is first very much flesh and blood on TV and only next a comic hero. Maybe that's why he confusing children?On Saboot (STAR Plus), we witnessed a real and appalling event inspiring fiction. The 1997 Delhi Uphaar cinema tragedy was the take-off point for a story on a movie-hall owner being murdered by people who had lost dear ones in a fire that consumed the building. Most were under the psychiatric care of the doctor who plotted the killing. It all felt too close forcomfort, as wrong as Inspector KC said, was the taking of a life for lives. Last month, at a UNESCO meeting on TV violence and children, executives from Zee, Sony and STAR piously pledged themselves to self-regulation. So what do they go and do? Introduce more violent programmes in the prime-time belt, advance horror shows and violent serials to prime time when they know children are watching. Such audacity, hypocrisy deserves admiration.