Freedom of press

It has worsened over the years

How free is the media or, for that matter, how free is the right to express one-self? This is the question which has arisen in India after the three speeches, one by Vice-President Hamid Ansari, another by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and yet another by Justice Markandey Katju, Chief of Press Council. The right to say has assumed all the more importance after Salman Rushdie’s non-participation at the Jaipur Literary Festival because of threats. In Pune, screening of a documentary on Kashmir was stopped following protests by the students’ wing of the BJP.
Talking of the first two speeches, both Vice-President and the Prime Minister have asked the media to introspect their role because of sensationalism that has crept into their dissemination. There was not even a hint of direct or indirect control of the media in their speeches. However, Justice Katju has warned the media that some regulation may have to be imposed as self-regulation is no regulation. Since independence, New Delhi’s record has been clean except when censorship was imposed during the emergency (1975-77). Governments have followed Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru who assured the All India Newspaper Editors’ Conference as back as on December 3, 1950: “I would have a completely free press with all the dangers involved in the wrong use of that freedom than a suppressed or regulated press.”
Justice Katju appears to be on a different pitch. He should know that the Press Council was constituted to safeguard the press freedom. Unfortunately, his speeches reflect little understanding of the media’s nitty-gritty or its culture. To dub journalists illiterate within a day of becoming the Press Council chief has only alienated him from them. Journalists do not qualify for the job with all the degrees if they do not write well, have no nose for news or lack analytical ability. S Mulgaonkar, one of the leading editors that India has produced, was not even a graduate.
My worry is that the media is becoming a part of the establishment. In a free society, the press has a duty to inform the public without fear or favour. At times it is an unpleasant job, but it has to be performed because a free society is founded on free information. If the press were to publish only government handouts or official statements, there would be nothing to pinpoint lapses, deficiencies or mistakes. In fact, the truth is that the press is already too niminypiminy, too nice, altogether too refined and too ready to leave out. Still the greater danger is that the profession is becoming an industry and tending to project views of the corporate sector. Somehow, those who occupy high positions labour under the belief that they – and they alone – know what the nation should be told and when. And they get annoyed if any news which they do not like appears in print. Their first attempt is to contradict it and dub it mischievous. Later, when it is realised that a mere denial will not convince even the most gullible, a lame explanation is offered that things have not been put “in proper perspective.”
I served the first Press Council. Every member felt that the Press Council should be without teeth. It was founded as a body of peers who should judge peers. Justice Katju’s argument that it should have powers to penalise defeats the very purpose of the Council. It is not a court. There are already enough of them and one can be created for the media alone. But the purpose of constituting the Council is to leave it to the Council members – editors, journalists and proprietors – to decide how to improve the erring publication. I think it should be made obligatory for the papers to print the Council’s decision, however unfavourable.
Justice Katju should see the record of the Council which has been invariably an extension of the Information and Broadcasting Ministry. The Council was at its worst during the emergency when the chairman was at the end of a telephone call by Information Minister V C Shukla who played havoc with the press. George Verghese was wrongly dismissed by The Hindustan Times but before the Council could give its verdict in his favour, it was abolished.
Even lately, the Council did not live up to its independent status. There were many complaints against the press on what came to be recognised as “paid news.” News columns, considered sacrosanct, were used to campaign for a candidate who paid money. The Council’s original report had to be watered down because of the pressure exerted by proprietors of newspapers and television channels. Justice Katju’s warning against paid news is all right but he may find the Council itself divided on the subject.
As regards Salman Rushdie, he had to cancel his visit because of threat to his life. Probably, the government was equivocal in providing him security. But this is not the point. The democratic polity that India is guarantees the freedom of speech. Some fundamentalists, who had taken umbrage against his book, The Satanic Verses, made the entire Muslim community a hostage. Liberal Muslims never speak out although they are vociferous in condemning Hindus on any act of omission or commission.
The Supreme Court has said: “The personal liberty of an individual is the most precious and prized right guaranteed under the constitution.” The Deoband seminary should realise this, if it has not so far, that in a secular society the constitution is above fatwa. M F Husain met more or less the same fate at the hands of Hindu fanatics. All such voices are marginal and do not represent the majority.
Free expression was violated at the Symbiosis College of Arts and Commerce which cancelled the screening of a documentary on Kashmir. The institute had received a notice from the Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) which objected to the screening of the documentary, calling it “separatist”. The documentary – Jashn-e-Azadi by Sanjay Kak – spoke against the Army and in a way justified terrorists’ functioning in the Valley. (In protest, I am resigning from the position of Professor Emeritus in Journalism at Symbiosis).
No doubt, the space for free expression is shrinking all over the world. Yet I always thought that India would be an oasis in the desert of suppression and restriction on free expression. The fanatics and a weak government have proved me wrong. In Rushdie’s case, the UP election aggravated the problem because the state has nearly 15 percent of Muslim electorate while the screening of Kashmir documentary had to be cancelled to placate the Hindutva crowd.

The writer is a senior Indian journalist.